Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier? We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
A couple of schools close to Arsenal’s stadium hire out the school playground for car parking on match days. One of them I know the school business manager and confirmed the school receives money from this.
Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.
Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
Where my parents live there are no traffic issues, only have the 291 bus in walkable distance and don’t have any parking issues. All it would have done is try to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and cost them a lot of money to park outside their own house.
Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.
Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
Does this apply to the Shooters Hill area of Plumstead?
Yes, again well served, but also very sharp elbowed middle class at play there, vote green, don’t be green
Must be hiding the Train, DLR, Tube, Tram stations up there. Maybe it’s the loads of bus routes they have that hide them!
Yes the 244 the bus journey from hell!!
Yes this sharp elbowed working class woman voted green not being green! Love it.
Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.
Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
I don’t understand what you mean by absolutist.
Im impressed with your knowledge of those stats. That is interesting.
But I just dont agree with charging those on minimum wage to go to work locally. I don’t agree with the extra tax and I disagree that the area suffers traffic problems. It only suffers badly when something goes wrong at the tunnel or bridge. Or the complete screw up by the council this week.
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier? We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
That was quick. I suppose it is demand-led.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 13th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier? We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
That was quick. I suppose it is demand-led.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 6th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
Seems to have gone back up to £15 now when I look? Maybe it is cheaper if you book earlier? We used it for the Watford game and it worked ok, I hope the school get a good amount of the money.
That was quick. I suppose it is demand-led.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 13th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
How busy was it for the Watford game?
Sorry not sure - we arrived early and then left late due to going to the club shop after the game. All I know is when we turned up at about 11am the 'front entrance' car park was already full.
Obviously I am only concerned about matchday parking,but surely this will affect any person visiting families or friends,if you drive 100 miles to see your mum and dad,can you only park outside their house for 2 hours.I do agree,I would be pissed off if I came home from work and couldnt park due to football traffic,but these proposed restrictions will cause many problems for residents,I hope they speak up.
You buy a house near a sports stadium and then get pissed off at people wishing to park there as a result. This is a bit like buying a house near an airport and then complaining about the noise once you have moved in. Mmmmmm. 🙄
Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.
Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?
All it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.
Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?
Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.
Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?
All it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.
Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.
As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?
Rumours coming out of a meeting at Woolwich Town Hall this evening that the council have abandoned plans for CPZ's in two areas Plumstead & Shooters Hill, maybe with enough public pressure the council will withdraw their plans for other areas.
Fair play and well done to those residents in Plumstead and Shooters Hill who stood up to Greenwich Council and got them to back down.
Very remindful to what 14,838 votes against the local council at the time over 35 years ago
Taking it back to the other thread and the comment about Plumstead residents being wrong by @Rothko
The people that need their cars are usually the most poorly paid I believe? The carers? I usually see 3 or 4 sets on my walk to the station buzzing about in their little micras. The teaching assistants that park in my road to work in the primary school at the end of the road. Maybe they need to drop off their own kids to schools so can’t use public transport. The children that need to visit their elderly parents on a daily basis would then have to pay for that necessity, which might just stretch the finances too much that they stop.
Doesnt affect us city types who use public transport but seems to me that it would just be a step too far for the financially vulnerable.
Who would ever have thought that owning a car would become only for the privileged.
The poorest Londoners don’t drive,
Of the households that earn less than £10,000, 78% do not own a car and 64% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. In outer London, 70% of households that earn less than £10,000 annually do not own a car and 53% of households that earn between £10,000 and £19,999 do not own a car. The poorest Londoners are more affected by air pollution.
I disagree with the Plumstead campaign, as the area is pretty badly affected by traffic issues, is well served by public transport and with proper implementation would have improved the area. The council have been absolutist on the issue, which doesn’t help, and the move should have been gradual, but the campaign against is as absolutist the other way.
So what would have improved exactly on the multiple residential roads impacted which are not on what most would describe as main / busy roads?
All it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.
Were residents expected to sell their cars then and give up on car ownership?
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?
And for about the 50th time I’ve told you, I drive and have my own space, I also drive a terrible woke EV, but you know this, so what’s your next performative flourish.
As for the residents, who’s being asked to sell their car? The lack of spaces thing has always been over hyped, because as you say, these are quiet roads with no problems. as for the cost of a permit, do you think £2 a week is too expensive for parking, or is a space on the road for a car a fundamental human right?
We are an incredibly woke household with a fully EV car. We will be ok but again I’m not moaning about myself.
If I remember rightly you had to move out of London as it was too expensive. I’m shocked that you do not feel anything for those (lower earners) that need a car to work and that have to find more money to park. Very harsh and uncaring for those that need it. Surprises me that.
Of course those residents that require a tradesperson to visit their home and undertake work will now see the cost of any cpz charges passed onto them by the trader. This is natural for any tax increase, the customer always pays. I am sure those who are finding it hard to make ends meet will be able to meet the extra cost the councillors in Greenwich have deemed acceptable for their residents and any visitors to their area. Such a regressive way to earn the council more money and terribly unfair as those who can afford it and those who can least afford it will pay the same amount to have the audacity to own and need to park a vehicle on the King's highway.
Comments
a nonsense idea rightly scrapped.
Yes this sharp elbowed working class woman voted green not being green! Love it.
Im impressed with your knowledge of those stats. That is interesting.
But I just dont agree with charging those on minimum wage to go to work locally. I don’t agree with the extra tax and I disagree that the area suffers traffic problems. It only suffers badly when something goes wrong at the tunnel or bridge. Or the complete screw up by the council this week.
It is £15 for Millwall (Sep 13th) at the moment. Given that there will be no trains from Cannon Street / London Bridge to Charlton on that day it might be a good idea to book early.
How busy was it for the Watford game?
This is a bit like buying a house near an airport and then complaining about the noise once you have moved in.
Mmmmmm. 🙄
All
it would have done would reduce parking spots and impose a cost.
I will ask again. Are you either not a car owner or have the benefit of your own drive?
Very remindful to what 14,838 votes against the local council at the time over 35 years ago
Now how did that end up in the end I wonder