Forum topic: A 'dashboard' showing traffic volumes and speeds in the Fox Lane area

I'll start this contribution by referring back to David Berkovitch's comment on the the 31st January to the effect that he was: "Not sure why a cyclist would want more cars on Green Lanes" referring to the effect that the Council's proposal to push rat-runners on the Lakes Estate onto Green Lanes would have. I agree with him, but I suspect that the Council's logic was that the rise in traffic on Green Lanes would have the effect of persuading some drivers to travel by other means (bus, train, bike) or a different route. Time will tell, but it is certainly true that some, perhaps many, people drive when there are alternative choices. In a big town or city that is not a wise choice other than in exceptional circumstance such as difficulty with walking to appropriate public transport.

David, Hi, the cycle lane scheme in Fore St is part of the same plan as the rest of Enfield and is described on the Cycle Enfield website. There was an overall budget of something like £38m via funding from the Mayor of London which was divided between the different parts of the borough. The most costly being the Green Lanes route which was just under £9m. However there were overruns and works that had to be redone etc. and I have heard of figures of £2m which which council had to underwrite. The scheme borough-wide has not even been completely implemented and some sections have been dropped altogether.

Interesting. Well at least if part of EMH then TfL paid for it not the Council as widely mis-reported.

As I understand it most of the money for the A105 Green Lanes cycle lanes came from the Government via Boris Johnson (if I have it right the Government's contribution was £100 million which was divided more or less equally between three London boroughs when Boris was mayor of London), although various organisations chipped in with smaller amounts of money for Enfield as time went on.

As all levels of Government attitudes to cycling are changing, partly because of space problems (a driver-only car needs an awful lot of space for one little person especially when the necessary gap between cars is taken into account), but also because of pressure to improve air quality; even tyres affect air quality.

The Council was given a grant of £30 million, they had to fine £12 million themselves,,,,no wonder some services are facing cuts. Not sure who is paying for remedial works either.

Others have a better handle on the figures than me (Karl, perhaps) but I don't those where the numbers when the scheme started. Enfield only needed to chip in a couple of mill. If mis-management has caused cost over-runs meaning that Council has had to dip into its pockets further then that isn't a problem with the scheme, just typical public sector inefficiency.

Might help if useless drivers didn't keep driving into things though......

Urban myths never die: somewhere, long ago, I posted a copy of the relevant Cabinet paper showing the contributions to the original spend. None came from Enfield. What happened with any overruns and such I don’t know but TfL build in a hefty contingency element (something like 30% by memory) in funded projects to cover all but the extreme scenario.
Worth also adding that all of LBE’s transport related spends (see eg this week’s Cabinet papers on medium term plans and budgets) must align with TFL’s strategy, because they fund it, and as I’ve also pointed out in previous postings, the TfL strategy, aka the Mayors Transport Strategy / London Plan, is very clear in its direction of travel – feet, two wheels, public transport are good, cars however do not get a cheer.