I can understand why you would ask for a CPZ. But this would cost the residents, cause inconvenience/expense for resident's visitors etc and have a knock on effect to adjoining areas.
I note that many other areas near stations have the 1 hour parking restriction during the day effectively blocking commuters from parking. A more passive and cheaper way? Would this be a runner? Do we need to get some quantitative evidence to back this up?
PP
Oyster Card introduction shut station gates
The residents of Spring Hill and Peak Hill Gardens need to work out for themselves - and between themselves - what they want in terms of a CPZ.
This neighbourhood has had a very "turbulent" relationship with CPZs and with any other suggestions which have been made to improve their situation in the last few years.
In the CPZ consultation organised by LBL three years ago, only 9 out of the 80 households in Spring Hill and PHG bothered to return their forms, and of those, only a minority wanted a CPZ. Nevertheless, local councillors said that they would consider a "local" CPZ if the neighbourhood wanted one. Before any further consultation, a small group from this neighbourhood attended the Sydenham Forum brandishing a petition signed by a majority of residents saying that they did not want a CPZ. This petition included the signature of GillyJP!
When the Sydenham Road Regeneration was at its earliest stage, the Sydenham Society drew up a rough plan to get the regeneration scheme off the ground. This included (as a possible suggestion only) a plan to close off Spring Hill and improve the end of this road next to The Greyhound with a "pocket park". Of course, this would have meant that Spring Hill/PHG residents would have had to enter and leave their homes by car via the roads to the rear - but it would have protected the whole neighbourhood from short-term parking. This plan was also "firmly rejected" by a small number of residents. They didn't even want to discuss the issue or any similar alternatives. As I remember, one of them spat at me and threatened to "knock my block off." I am delighted to see that this scheme has since been moved further down the road to the end of Queensthorpe in the final consultation document on Sydenham Road that has just been released, where, I'm sure, it will be more gratefully received.
With a whole number of contradictory messages coming from this neighbourhood (even Gilly seems to have changed her mind on CPZs in just 18 months!) it would seem to me that this locality needs to work out exactly what it wants itself before we proceed any further.
However, I do not want to stand in the way of Paddy Pantsdown or any others who want to volunteer for the job of canvassing opinion in this neighbourhood or wish, perhaps, to chair a local meeting with neighbours. Please step forward!
As for me, I'm happy to step out of this. Even as a rugby player of thirty years standing, I'm not afraid to admit that I haven't got the bottle for this one.
This neighbourhood has had a very "turbulent" relationship with CPZs and with any other suggestions which have been made to improve their situation in the last few years.
In the CPZ consultation organised by LBL three years ago, only 9 out of the 80 households in Spring Hill and PHG bothered to return their forms, and of those, only a minority wanted a CPZ. Nevertheless, local councillors said that they would consider a "local" CPZ if the neighbourhood wanted one. Before any further consultation, a small group from this neighbourhood attended the Sydenham Forum brandishing a petition signed by a majority of residents saying that they did not want a CPZ. This petition included the signature of GillyJP!
When the Sydenham Road Regeneration was at its earliest stage, the Sydenham Society drew up a rough plan to get the regeneration scheme off the ground. This included (as a possible suggestion only) a plan to close off Spring Hill and improve the end of this road next to The Greyhound with a "pocket park". Of course, this would have meant that Spring Hill/PHG residents would have had to enter and leave their homes by car via the roads to the rear - but it would have protected the whole neighbourhood from short-term parking. This plan was also "firmly rejected" by a small number of residents. They didn't even want to discuss the issue or any similar alternatives. As I remember, one of them spat at me and threatened to "knock my block off." I am delighted to see that this scheme has since been moved further down the road to the end of Queensthorpe in the final consultation document on Sydenham Road that has just been released, where, I'm sure, it will be more gratefully received.
With a whole number of contradictory messages coming from this neighbourhood (even Gilly seems to have changed her mind on CPZs in just 18 months!) it would seem to me that this locality needs to work out exactly what it wants itself before we proceed any further.
However, I do not want to stand in the way of Paddy Pantsdown or any others who want to volunteer for the job of canvassing opinion in this neighbourhood or wish, perhaps, to chair a local meeting with neighbours. Please step forward!
As for me, I'm happy to step out of this. Even as a rugby player of thirty years standing, I'm not afraid to admit that I haven't got the bottle for this one.
Oyster
Paddy, I like the one hour restriction idea and have been thinking how lovely it would be to have a cpz in our road, Tannsfeld, (as I am sure many roads off the high street would appreciate) as I do have trouble parking near my house a lot of the time, which as others with similar problems know, with young children, babies and shopping etc, can be a bit of a strain.
I would not want to affect local trade by having residents' all day only parking but stopping commuters would be great! My mum's road in north London have had a similar scheme introduced. It costs £40 a year for a permit, which I don't think is that bad, and you can get books of permits, to allow friends, tradesmen etc to park for £1 a time.
I would not want to affect local trade by having residents' all day only parking but stopping commuters would be great! My mum's road in north London have had a similar scheme introduced. It costs £40 a year for a permit, which I don't think is that bad, and you can get books of permits, to allow friends, tradesmen etc to park for £1 a time.
18 months ago the gate to platform One wasn’t open so the current problems with the parking didn’t exist. I’m sure that if residents were asked now what they felt about having a cpz introduced that they would jump at the chance. If not a cpz, then waiting restrictions would be another solution. As to the “closing of Spring Hill/Peak Hill Gardens to allow a “pocket park”, that would have been a bad idea as any traffic coming in/out of that area would have had to go past St. Bart’s primary school which is already congested and pose more of a danger to young children. The other roads surrounding the area are not wide enough to allow 2 lanes of traffic so there would possibly have had to have been a one-way system introduced. What ever way you look at it the traffic would have had to have come out onto the main road, so it would only have moved the congestion problems to another spot.
Due to the amount of cars that park down our road so that they can gain access to the station it has become increasingly difficult for larger vehicles, ie. refuse trucks, ambulances and fire engines in particular, to turn around and pass parked cars safely.
Parking has become increasingly worse since the gate to platform 1 of Sydenham station has been opened to allow disabled access. We are continually having problems with cars parking on the pavement outside our homes and cars sometimes park across residents driveways.
A few years ago a survey was carried out and the residents decided against controlled parking/parking restrictions, but at the time the gate was locked and the parking problems that exist now didn't exist then.
Due to the amount of cars that park down our road so that they can gain access to the station it has become increasingly difficult for larger vehicles, ie. refuse trucks, ambulances and fire engines in particular, to turn around and pass parked cars safely.
Parking has become increasingly worse since the gate to platform 1 of Sydenham station has been opened to allow disabled access. We are continually having problems with cars parking on the pavement outside our homes and cars sometimes park across residents driveways.
A few years ago a survey was carried out and the residents decided against controlled parking/parking restrictions, but at the time the gate was locked and the parking problems that exist now didn't exist then.
In response to Nasaroc's post of 5 May - I categorically deny that I ever signed the petition against the CPZ 18 months ago. I have ALWAYS been for a CPZ in PHG. I would be very interested in seeing my signature on this petition as if it is there it was fradulant.
Also - I would add that this is privileged information and Nasaroc should most certainly NOT be bandying it around on a public website. In this instance I am rather glad he did since it would appear that someone has been putting my signature to something I did not agree to. It makes me woncer how many other signatures were fake on this petition? Why would I not want a CPZ? - we can well afford to pay for a resident's parking permit, plus a visitor's one if necessary and would be happy to do so. I would much rather see PHG used as a residential road than a car park for Sydenham Station, so whatever it takes as far as I am concerned.
Instead of reporting defamatory and totally untrue statements, I suggest Nasacroc you either get your facts right or shut up.
Also - I would add that this is privileged information and Nasaroc should most certainly NOT be bandying it around on a public website. In this instance I am rather glad he did since it would appear that someone has been putting my signature to something I did not agree to. It makes me woncer how many other signatures were fake on this petition? Why would I not want a CPZ? - we can well afford to pay for a resident's parking permit, plus a visitor's one if necessary and would be happy to do so. I would much rather see PHG used as a residential road than a car park for Sydenham Station, so whatever it takes as far as I am concerned.
Instead of reporting defamatory and totally untrue statements, I suggest Nasacroc you either get your facts right or shut up.
Well there go my chances of being elected Chair of Peak Hill Residents' Association!
Just trying to point out inconsistencies between stated intents and actions Gilly.
Here's another one.
You tell us of your principled and unerring aim to protect PHG from outside intruders. But look at what you wrote on this forum on 14th April 2006:
..."when I was approached by the group opposing the closing off of the roundabout entrance to Spring Hill, I felt unable to voice my preference for it being closed off. I just kept my head down"...
I am unclear why you want to paint me as someone who is uncaring about PHG and its residents and yourself as an unwavering battler for justice and principle. I was the one out on the street being spat and shouted at for trying to suggest solutions for PHG whilst you were "just keeping your head down."
I hope you'll forgive me but I don't intend to make that mistake again.
Just trying to point out inconsistencies between stated intents and actions Gilly.
Here's another one.
You tell us of your principled and unerring aim to protect PHG from outside intruders. But look at what you wrote on this forum on 14th April 2006:
..."when I was approached by the group opposing the closing off of the roundabout entrance to Spring Hill, I felt unable to voice my preference for it being closed off. I just kept my head down"...
I am unclear why you want to paint me as someone who is uncaring about PHG and its residents and yourself as an unwavering battler for justice and principle. I was the one out on the street being spat and shouted at for trying to suggest solutions for PHG whilst you were "just keeping your head down."
I hope you'll forgive me but I don't intend to make that mistake again.
Sorry I am not prepared to move on quite yet. Nasaroc has said that Gillyjp did something she did not. Will he apologise or will he just ignore things he doen't like as usual. Also quote used in his post that is unforgiveable. Yes it was said, but this was a woman on her own and a group of people protesting and making their views known to Councillors and as I recall members of the Sydenham Society.
Clearly Nasaroc has no contact with the real world. PHG may be rough where he comes from and I would suggest it is probably 50% owner occuped or provate lets now. If he wants to see realy rough I can take him to other areas in London or even the Borough which I am sure will scare him rigid.
Does he (or for that matter any of the rest of the Sydenham Society for that matter) go and canvas the views of the tenants of the areas council estates, or for that matter the majority of people they claim to speak for as the voice of Sydenham. I am sorry I see no evidence of it and when views in contradiction to the party line are expressed they are run down and dismissed as being selfish.
Thanks however to dickp for his constructive comments. I actually doubt very much whether the gate will be left open We seem to have forgotten why it was proposed - to allow the use of Oyster cards. I don't think the readers work in the rain and therefore some form of shelter would have to be built etc. and the platform rearranged. And remember you have to log in your Oyster Card or you get deducted maximum fare.
However in the unlikely event of the gate being kept open active discouragement of people smoking outside the gate would be good as this is not only anti social but also acts as a cover for other gatherings. Also I still think parking restrictions for an hour or so in the middle of the day would be good to stop the commuters, but still allowing the road to be used for parking by residents and the users of local businesses such as LA Fitness. (I guess as a rugby player also of 30 years standing I will brave the horrors of the road to talk to the other residents to see if there is any support - any one want to join me?) And finally what about a few trees to break up the street scene and add colour. Could this be considered as part of the otherwise rather dull proposals for the high street?
Clearly Nasaroc has no contact with the real world. PHG may be rough where he comes from and I would suggest it is probably 50% owner occuped or provate lets now. If he wants to see realy rough I can take him to other areas in London or even the Borough which I am sure will scare him rigid.
Does he (or for that matter any of the rest of the Sydenham Society for that matter) go and canvas the views of the tenants of the areas council estates, or for that matter the majority of people they claim to speak for as the voice of Sydenham. I am sorry I see no evidence of it and when views in contradiction to the party line are expressed they are run down and dismissed as being selfish.
Thanks however to dickp for his constructive comments. I actually doubt very much whether the gate will be left open We seem to have forgotten why it was proposed - to allow the use of Oyster cards. I don't think the readers work in the rain and therefore some form of shelter would have to be built etc. and the platform rearranged. And remember you have to log in your Oyster Card or you get deducted maximum fare.
However in the unlikely event of the gate being kept open active discouragement of people smoking outside the gate would be good as this is not only anti social but also acts as a cover for other gatherings. Also I still think parking restrictions for an hour or so in the middle of the day would be good to stop the commuters, but still allowing the road to be used for parking by residents and the users of local businesses such as LA Fitness. (I guess as a rugby player also of 30 years standing I will brave the horrors of the road to talk to the other residents to see if there is any support - any one want to join me?) And finally what about a few trees to break up the street scene and add colour. Could this be considered as part of the otherwise rather dull proposals for the high street?
I've just had a very interesting reply from Southern about the gates. Apologies if I'm repeating what people already know. Here it is in full:
Thank you for e-mail addressed to my Managing Director, Chris Burchell, about the proposed cessation of unsupervised access through the side gates at Forest Hill and Sydenham railway stations.
The proposal arises from work we are doing with Transport for London (TfL) on introducing ticket gates along the whole of the extended East London line. Full gating of the stations was considered the best option as opposed to only Oyster card readers because with full gating comes additional staff to manage the gates, additional CCTV for added security, and new ticket machines with Oyster capability. Moreover, a full gating scheme is a significant deterrent against fraudulent travel.
The current plan is to have gates in the booking halls at New Cross Gate, Brockley, Forest Hill, Honor Oak Park and Sydenham. At Brockley, Forest Hill and Sydenham, however, there are also side gates which allow access and egress at these stations directly to or from the platforms on the opposite side to the booking halls. The project team is acutely aware that a proportion of passengers at each of these stations will be concerned to learn that this provision may no longer be available. They were therefore keen to find a balance which meets the aim of having entirely gated stations but also minimises the inconvenience to passengers who currently use the small gates.
To this end, each station has been surveyed and a compromise sought.
At Brockley and Forest Hill, additional staff are planned to cover the side gates at the most popular times. Unfortunately, however, it has not been possible to provide a similar arrangement at Sydenham as the area around the side gate and the gate itself is not big enough to allow for two members of staff to manage it and for passengers to pass through with ease. The plan for Sydenham, therefore, is to have gates in the booking hall and, whilst we also plan to close the side gate, it will be remotely operated by the staff in the booking hall for passengers who require step free access and will be open when the station is un-staffed.
In due course, these gates will also have Oyster 'Pay As You Go' beacons for touching in and out.
Thank you for e-mail addressed to my Managing Director, Chris Burchell, about the proposed cessation of unsupervised access through the side gates at Forest Hill and Sydenham railway stations.
The proposal arises from work we are doing with Transport for London (TfL) on introducing ticket gates along the whole of the extended East London line. Full gating of the stations was considered the best option as opposed to only Oyster card readers because with full gating comes additional staff to manage the gates, additional CCTV for added security, and new ticket machines with Oyster capability. Moreover, a full gating scheme is a significant deterrent against fraudulent travel.
The current plan is to have gates in the booking halls at New Cross Gate, Brockley, Forest Hill, Honor Oak Park and Sydenham. At Brockley, Forest Hill and Sydenham, however, there are also side gates which allow access and egress at these stations directly to or from the platforms on the opposite side to the booking halls. The project team is acutely aware that a proportion of passengers at each of these stations will be concerned to learn that this provision may no longer be available. They were therefore keen to find a balance which meets the aim of having entirely gated stations but also minimises the inconvenience to passengers who currently use the small gates.
To this end, each station has been surveyed and a compromise sought.
At Brockley and Forest Hill, additional staff are planned to cover the side gates at the most popular times. Unfortunately, however, it has not been possible to provide a similar arrangement at Sydenham as the area around the side gate and the gate itself is not big enough to allow for two members of staff to manage it and for passengers to pass through with ease. The plan for Sydenham, therefore, is to have gates in the booking hall and, whilst we also plan to close the side gate, it will be remotely operated by the staff in the booking hall for passengers who require step free access and will be open when the station is un-staffed.
In due course, these gates will also have Oyster 'Pay As You Go' beacons for touching in and out.
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
But that side gate is wider than the old door in the ticket office, where several inspectors would often stand waiting to check tickets. They didn't worry about ease of access when two trains' worth of passengers were trying to get out, or about those arriving to catch their train.
Like the way they are blaming Tfl too
Like the way they are blaming Tfl too
Oyster readers
Sorry,someone might have answered this earlier in this thread, but if disabled people and those with pushchairs are going to be able to gain access via an intercom system, what happens to those who want to use an Oyster card, will there be a reader on this platform?
Just to clarify things.
1. Oyster cards cannot be used on this line until May 2009. Until then, "paper" tickets only will gain passengers entry through the gates to be erected at the ticket office.
2. Southern seem intent on continuing with their plan to close the gate onto Peak Hill Gardens. However, it is worth noting that all of the gates on both sides of the station will be left wide open after 8pm when the staff go home. So much for Southern's concern for passenger safety over income!
The great news is that we may have a solution to keeping our gates open. We've just heard the news that Southern are only going to run our local stations for one more year. In May 2009, TFL are taking over.
TFL, thankfully, have an attitude to passenger access that is quite different to Southern. They are very keen to keep all existing gates accessible for all passengers using Oyster readers on the up gate and are currently working with LBL on a new scheme for an enlarged gate on the up platform.
1. Oyster cards cannot be used on this line until May 2009. Until then, "paper" tickets only will gain passengers entry through the gates to be erected at the ticket office.
2. Southern seem intent on continuing with their plan to close the gate onto Peak Hill Gardens. However, it is worth noting that all of the gates on both sides of the station will be left wide open after 8pm when the staff go home. So much for Southern's concern for passenger safety over income!
The great news is that we may have a solution to keeping our gates open. We've just heard the news that Southern are only going to run our local stations for one more year. In May 2009, TFL are taking over.
TFL, thankfully, have an attitude to passenger access that is quite different to Southern. They are very keen to keep all existing gates accessible for all passengers using Oyster readers on the up gate and are currently working with LBL on a new scheme for an enlarged gate on the up platform.
For those of you who missed the article about gate closures in The Newshopper, here is a link:
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/trans ... update.php
We now have over 400 signatures on the on-line petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/18722.html
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/trans ... update.php
We now have over 400 signatures on the on-line petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/18722.html
-
roundasapound
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 2 May 2008 05:46
- Location: The Thorpes, SE26
The gate is now closed, the ticket barriers are erected and the guy in the station shop told me they'll be operational within a few weeks.
Also what I don't get is there's only 3 ticket barrier gates, so is it gonna be 1 out of the station and 2 in, then vice versa in the evening?
We signed the petition but they didn't listen?! Makes you wonder what's the point really.
It's gonna be madness wait for the stampede in peak times
Also what I don't get is there's only 3 ticket barrier gates, so is it gonna be 1 out of the station and 2 in, then vice versa in the evening?
We signed the petition but they didn't listen?! Makes you wonder what's the point really.
It's gonna be madness wait for the stampede in peak times
-
welsh girl
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 18 Sep 2006 13:25
- Location: London
Looks really bad that there is only one in one out because in ruch hour that is going to be MANIC. It's already slowed down exit from the station where people have to walk through where the barriers are put up.
I'm new to the area so can someone tell me how this will work because I currently use a zones 1 - 3 monthly oyster season ticket. I think read on this forum that I won't be able to use oyster until May 09? Is this true or have I confused myself?
I'm new to the area so can someone tell me how this will work because I currently use a zones 1 - 3 monthly oyster season ticket. I think read on this forum that I won't be able to use oyster until May 09? Is this true or have I confused myself?