Forum topic: Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood: More details

The data is vehicle count entering / leaving the area, ie the Fox Lane QN boundary rather than individual streets. The grey cells are streets which do not have boundary entry / exit points and hence no relevant count; whereas eg Meadway and Devonshire have entry / exit at both ends and so their in / out figures broadly tie up, net of parked cars in the main. Other streets, OPR being the used example, have only one end as an entry / exit point. The data refers to that, not the total number of vehicles passing through the street. (OPR as the used example is roughly 50% higher on a total traffic 24 hour basis.) What it is possible to conclude is that there are significantly more vehicles leaving OPR at the park end than enter at the same spot - that’s the rush hour tidal effect, cars going southbound in the morning; many have long used a different route to get home in the evenings. Others reveal they are little more than a rat run – Amberley, despite being an entry / exit point at only one end, has figures pretty much equal in both columns, that’s because the vast majority of vehicle trips using Amberley are non-residents / stopping at the households there. Nothing new here.

Thank you Karl for giving some meaning to the numbers. It shouldn't have been necessary. I still see an anomaly with the numbers for Devonshire Road which is one way and has a single entry to the QN area and one exit. There is limited non-residential parking there yet apparently 37 more vehicles entered than left during the 12 hour period. (I presume this was 7am to 7pm to cover both rush hour periods)

It's winter.

Presumably when it's spring/summer they'll be overflowing with beautiful flowers.... Personally am happy to reserve judgement till then.

Having driven round the area a bit this weekend now, both Friday evening ("rush hour") and Sunday afternoon quiet time, these planters aren't causing the devastating traffic issues mooted by some. Cars back up a little but then go through fine.

The ones placed almost behind the existing road entrance narrowing seem pretty redundant but the Mall, Cannons End, is an absolute corker. And contrary to concerns - it's been placed perfectly, not round a blind bend but right on the apex. It's clearly visible as early as going round the mini roundabout and never disappears from view. Combined with the bright white reflective panel, bad driving is the only reason it should ever take a knock.

Why bother complaining? You know the Council will do as they jolly well like, regardless of anything we say. You don’t have to be speeding to come in contact with another vehicle or the planter. Not every driver lives in the area. That corner has always been tricky, regardless of speed. Try waiting to get around the corner while one of the many big 4x4s hog the road. As for the colour? I can just hear our illustrious Councillors, “Paint it dark! The more contacts, the more ammunition for our plans to rid Londoners of their cars altogether! Ha, ha ha!” The ‘Machine’ gets their way again!!!

The point I was trying to make the other day was not whether a school coach was supposed to be travelling on The Mall but that other large vehicles are very likely to use the access points such as delivery lorries, removal vans, bin lorries etc etc. and all of them will have problems at some stage. The other day a delivery van was parked by the corner of the Mall which was unable to park in the slip road by the shops and is now faced with the obstacle of the planter. Issues like this actually make congestion worse not better unless you want the local shops to close down because deliveries are too difficult to make.

The goal of QNs is to rebalance the streets in favour of pedestrians, cyclists and the people who actually live in the houses within the area - not to ease congestion. Indeed some initial congestion at the entrances will (hopefully) dissuade rat runners. If it makes it slightly harder (but not impossible) for big vehicles to enter then that's a price worth paying.

Adrian Day hits the nail on the head in his explanation of the goals for QNs. Personally, and as another resident in the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood, I’m delighted that steps are being taken to improve quality of life on the estate, and that as a consequence of that kids may be able to get some of their freedoms back. Our QN is not yet as good as it should be, but it is a step in the right direction which could be improved in future.

But the exchange, originally prompted by Elaine Hall-Freeman – whose intervention was unfair to the Council because it had changed quite a few of the proposals for the estate at the request of residents – prompts the memory that QN’s are part of the cycle lane plan for the A105 Green Lanes. Without them, with all their new rat-running disincentives, living on an estate along Green Lanes would probably have become intolerable. (Protection of residential areas in this way is a strategy adopted in at least one other European country which has installed cycle lanes).

The Green Lanes cycle-lane project reflects the need to curb the dominance of car-culture with all its greed for space, its emissions and dominance of the streets. No wonder the government (Conservative)found £100M for cycling, and the then London mayor, Boris Johnson, distributed it to three councils, of which Enfield was one.

The background issues for residential areas are space, air quality, quality of life, and in that context it should be noted that speeds close to 80mph have been measured in the Fox Lane area. That sort of behaviour has to stop, indeed speed above 20mph has to stop, so that residents can meet and greet in the streets and children can cycle in safety.