Forum topic: Public meeting to discuss the proposed Fox Lane Low Traffic Neighbourhood plans

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

A local resident, Paul Mandel, is organising a meeting on 10th January. The majority of people believe there is an issue that needs addressing on at least some of the roads in the area so do come and share your views for how rat running can be best addressed. The invitation is below:

All residents within the boundary of the proposed LTN scheme are invited to an open discussion about the Council’s “Low Traffic Neighbourhood Proposals” at Burford Hall on 10th January at 8.00pm.

The main purpose (roughly 90 minutes) is to see if any broad consensus can be reached among residents on a reasonable alternative plan to the Council’s radical but controversial proposals, against which there has a strong reaction. Emerging views will be fed back to Enfield Council.

The second last part of the meeting is to discuss how such ideas and campaigning should be taken forward by and on behalf of residents in the area. For example: working through the Residents Association, requirement for a working or steering group and the membership of any such body.

The meeting will be chaired by organiser Paul Mandel who with his partner produced the “Keep our Neighbourhood Open” window poster.

Paul has invited all the councillors in the four affected wards as well as the lead officer on this project Richard Eason and hopes that there will be some meaningful engagement. Though has not yet heard back. But notwithstanding the key aim is to solicit residents’ views on the best way forward

Please come along with your ideas.

Paul is the anti cycling/walking car zealot of SOGL fame, is he not?

No wonder he's behind the "neighbourhood open" posters as he was the same for the last set of SOGL which were verging on criminal for the misrepresentation, unauthorised use of official logos and deliberately misleading design to look like official LBE communique.

From memory, when you read into their detail, they were riddled with mistakes.....

It's been a very long time since I came across Paul Mandel, but I remember him as against making life easier for pedestrians and cyclists. At that time his approach was manifest through the Fox Lane Residents' Association.

Residents who are hopeful of restricting 'rat-running' and vehicle speed should probably be well armed with their arguments for change.

By now anyone interested/involved will have an opinion about the proposed Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood (QN), and will be wanting to ensure that the Council hears that opinion. Despite that I have heard next to nothing about why objectors to change take that view. Apart, that is, from not liking the idea of a single access road to the QN, which I understand has already been accepted for change by the Council. Perhaps someone from the ‘No’ camp will explain any other objections so that the rest of us can test it against our own views.

So far here is where I stand:
• the estate was built as a residential area with all that means in terms of a quiet social space and children’s freedoms;
• subsequently car ownership became almost universal, and generally the preferred way of travel, often when walking, cycling, or use of public transport would have been the better option;
• children’s freedoms have suffered most from the ‘car age’ so I’m hoping that the combination of fewer cars – because rat-runners are to be deterred – and a respected 20mph speed limit will enhance their freedoms a little, for example to practice riding a ‘bike’;
• some streets in the QN area are currently carrying very large amounts of rat-running traffic often at considerable speed which has to be prevented;
• poor air quality has been shown to damage children’s brains – I really don’t understand how rat-running drivers justify taking a shortcut through residential streets

Finally I should say that in my opinion the Government should have done far more to limit unnecessary car use in urban areas.

This topic is causing much discussion in our area, and is full of claims and counter-claims. But I think that we should also refer to the facts. A recent article included a statement "recorded speeds regularly over 60 mph". Any reader would get the impression that such speeds are very common. But - this is not the case. The instance quoted was - as I recall - a single point measurement during the monitoring exercise conducted by the council. Speeds are actually much lower.And I refer readers to the report published by Council officers. Link here It shows for example that 85% of traffic in one road - Old Park Road - is less than 30mph ie between 1-30 mph. Similar speeds were recorded for all other streets. For example in the Mall 85% of traffic is within band of 1- 20.5 MPH. So as this debate continues let us all refer to the published data

I observed several cars doing over 60mph in OPR as part of a speed gun exercise with police A few years ago . I work from home and most days I see one vehicle going very fast. But perhaps these facts are more pertinent, Richard. Imagine its your friends or relatives hit by a vehicle at 30mph....

I failed to conclude the statement from the link which shows only a one hour snapshot (based on the peak volume period).
Looking at the same quoted street, here’s some covert Met Police sourced data taken over a 14 day period for southbound traffic without visible ID, such as rubber strips. Class 1 is motorcycles, Class 4 is HGV’s, cars are Class 2. ACPO gets you a ticket for going above the speed limit plus 10% plus 2mph.

There really shouldn’t be any debate about the finer points of data: several streets have long acknowledged serious speed and volume problems, others have no issue at all, some, such as the Mall have more of a mix with high volumes but hump-controlled speeds.
Long ago there was a unanimous vote at a large FLDRA attended meeting roughly along the lines of a motion, “speed in the area is too fast”, without specifying what an acceptable speed was. I doubt much has changed since.

I object to the tone of this note. My posting simply stated that the debate should be based upon sound statistically based recorded and published data. And any reference to data should not be taken out of context or exaggerated. I did not express an opinion on the merits of any proposed scheme. And to insinuate that I would be insensitive to anybody being hit by a vehicle at any speed I find offensive.

I also note that the meeting scheduled by Paul Mandel invites all residents to come along irrespective of their views on proposed LTN schemes. The objectives are to sound out residents on the type of solution that might be found acceptable to all residents. That motive is entirely honourable - in my humble opinion.

One would hope that attendees come along with an open mind and listen to the views and proposals that are put forward