Forum topic: Cycle Enfield stakeholders to consider alternative to Green Lanes cycle route

This 'alternative' is frankly a god awful plan and will not encourage cycling. We already have 'greenways' and yet still the modal share for cycling sits stubbornly at 1%. In fact, we have a 'greenway' running parallel to Green lanes! Why does it remain low? Because people on bikes, like everyone else, want convenient journeys that don't involve detours. For cycling to be effective, momentum must be conserved. Stopping and staring is very inefficient.

These 'greenways' are by design sinuous and involve stop-start style cycling, as opposed to the main roads.

If we want to increase the cycling modal share, the only option is to provide a high quality network along main roads. Greenways can be provided as well, but they cannot be the substitute. The Dutch do not expect people cycling to endure inconvenient journeys, so, for the mini Holland scheme, neither should we.

And, responding to Tom Mellor, so say I.

I'd like to say a lot more, but, because I have other fish to fry today, I'll confine myself to pointing out two things. First that in an urban setting pushing cyclists off their most convenient route is an equality issue - and come-to-that so is pushing pedestrians off their most convenient route onto pedestrian crossing - and that, if the roads are to become safe for cycling, the sense of entitlement drivers feel as a consequence of 100 years of road rules which favour them has to be drawn to a close.

This is no consultation. It's a stitch up. An extremely limited and slanted list of stakeholders. It's as if car drivers, including disabled ones, taxi or minibus drivers, motorcyclists and road hauliers have already been banned from Enfield.

No it isn't like that at all. Those you mention already occupy 99% of the street space.

Those that are invited are the ones who should have a say in the scheme, namely the residents, businesses, and cycle campaigners, not taxi drivers...

Your inclusion of 'including disabled drivers' was amusing. Fail to see Enfield Disability Action and Wheels for Wheels For Well Being?

The consultation looks like a sham simply to make the Council appear to be meeting its statutory obligations

Stakeholders are all those who benefit from the roads. The important thing is that Enfield Council spends the £30m to create something that is beneficial to all and not a pig's ear. It looks like the latter will be the more likely outcome.

The current scheme will harm local businesses and make travel around the Borough more difficult than it is already. Worsening existing pinch-points around Enfield Town Centre, Edmonton and to a lesser extend Palmers Green will make matters even worse creating designer congestion and pollution. People who drive into the area (and the vast majority are not going to change a habit of a lifetime), shop where it is convenient to them and, like it or not, they will desert if they can't park within 1/8 mile or less of their destination and getting there takes even longer because of increased congestion. Businesses will close. The range of goods and services will deteriorate and even very local people who previously walked to nearby shops will end up setting off in their cars elsewhere.

My personal view is that the A1010, A105 and A110 should be largely left alone and dedicated main cycle routes should be along existing quiet roads such as Old Park Avenue Enfield - Old Park Road (Palmers Green) . Shared space in town centres is fine provided parking and road space availability to private vehicles is not reduced.

Wheels for Wellbeing is a cycling advocacy group! Enfield disability action does not specifically represent disabled car drivers. Charities such as Disabled Motoring UK and the Disabled Drivers Federation represent them.

Fine yes they should have also invited groups representing disabled drivers.

My problem with what you are saying is that 'beneficial to all' in your eyes means giving 100% to cars. If you think the A1010, A105, and A110 should be left alone, you are leaving most of the road space to cars, and Old Park Avenue is like the crumbs.

Also the £30 million is primarily for the benefit of cycling, which does not receive the regular funding. Do you instead suggest we give cycling decent funding levels, say £10-20 a year per person, which is actually more than £30 million. In any case increased cycling does benefit everyone else.

The baseless claims that people won't change their habits and that the area will die if cycle infrastructure is built completely ignores that habits stem from the environment. People cycle in the Netherlands because it is convenient and easy, not the other way round. Cycling in Britain is horrible. You also assume that the majority of shoppers arrive by car and that the majority use on street parking, again without evidence.

Pedestrianised shopping centres do well. It has been shown that the pleasantness of an area has more of an impact on business performance, not the availability of on street parking. And it's not like removing street parking completely leaves the driver with no other options, as there are plenty of spaces nearby. So unless driving twice the distance or so is faster than walking the 100m, it is still more convenient.

On street parking in the shopping centers increases congestion, and the cycle tracks will not affect the number of car lanes available.

Edit: It annoys me when someone against cycling infrastructure uses congestion and pollution as arguments. Bicycles are much more space efficient and create no pollution, so increasing the number of people cycling will help with those problems. The only way to do that is by providing good infrastructure.

Edit2: Let me illustrate as to why I think your position is unreasonable. Say we didn't build pavements next to roads and due to this pedestrian movements were low in all but the quietest streets. When providing pavements is proposed, many are opposed due to the 'low number of pedestrians', that people won't change their behaviour, or that it was 'not good for everyone' and unfair to 'car drivers'.

I'm not against car usage per se, as they do bring many advantages. They allow for the transportation goods and people over long distances, and they provide us with ambulances and fire engines, among other benefits. However, I do oppose mass car usage in an urban environment as it is not only unsustainable and damaging to society, it is also unnecessary. The vast majority of trips do not involve carrying anything particularly heavy and are not particularly long distance.

Let's look at the downsides to cars:

congestion
noise
green house gas emissions
air pollution
killing and maiming of thousands every year
occupying loads of space with atrociously looking structures
splitting communities with huge roads and an increase in crime due to this
preventing people from using active transport which worsens obesity
taking away of children's freedom
spending billions repairing roads and widening them

So we should be moving away from car usage, and the only way to do that is to provide viable alternatives.