The Cecil Road/Church Street junction - an excerpt from the detailed drawingsMore information about the revised Enfield Town section of Cycle Enfield are now available on the Cycle Enfield website. See this earlier report for an overview of the new scheme.
The following downloads are now available on this page
- Revised Option Design
- Predictive Equalities Impact Assessment
- Young People Summer Engagement Report
- Design Surgery Report
- Air Quality Assessment
- Economic Impact Assessment
Though the website refers to all the documents as "draft", at least some appear to be the final versions.
The Revised Options Design includes detailed drawings of the revised scheme. The Economic Impact Assessment incorporates assessment of the impacts on traffic, including bus routes.
Advisory panel reservations
The "design surgery" document is a note of a meeting held at TfL headquarters on 12th October, evidently of a panel set up by the Mayor of London's Design Advisory Group to review the proposals.
The document records that the panel members were disappointed that the revised proposal to retain the gyratory system and continue sending cars along Church Street, "reflecting concern over vehicle access and potential impact on congestion [...] does not realise the Mini-Holland ambition for cycling provision". They "had reservations about the resultant quality of the town centre for people on foot and whether their needs and desire lines were being adequately catered for". ("Desire lines" are the shorter routes which pedestrians take in place of the formally established routes, eg to cross a road.)
The panel also expressed unhappiness about the solution adopted at the eastern end of the scheme, near Enfield Town station, which does little if anything to make it easier for pedestrians to access the station from the west:
"Although the panel recognised concern over congestion and desire to maintain existing traffic flows it was noted that the retention of the existing traffic Island at the junction of Southbury Road and Genotin Road does not reflect pedestrian desire lines and provides a poor sense of arrival from the train station. The panel urged the borough to reconsider proposals here to provide a simpler solution which accommodate desire lines. Given the project's status as a Mini-Holland project the panel queried whether the borough considered the suitability of less ‘engineered’ approach to highway design such as implied roundabouts".
Justified disappointment
My own view is that the panel's disappointment is justified. While the new scheme will provide safe routes for cyclists, the improvements for pedestrians are much more limited than the original proposals, particularly in Church Street, and the impact on businesses will be minimal, whereas the original scheme could have provided a much needed boost for Church Street. The need to retain traffic throughput capacity has been made paramount. It's very unfortunate for Enfield Town that it happens to be in the way of the thousands of motorists who drive through it every day on their way from somewhere else to somewhere else.
was noted that the retention of the existing traffic Island at the junction of Southbury Road and
Genotin Road does not reflect pedestrian desire lines and provides a poor sense of arrival from the
train station. The panel urged the borough to reconsider proposals here to provide a simpler solution
which accommodate desire lines. Given the projects status as a Mini-Holland project the panel
queried whether the borough considered the suitability of less ‘engineered’ approach to highway
design such as implied roundabouts.