pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
facebook icon twitter icon

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

Enfield Council's recently announced plans for a new cycling and walking route will mean that the important shopping, travel and employment hub at Southgate Circus will for the first time be safely accessible by bike from the Fox Lane LTN and Palmers Green. However, continuing the route east of PG to the Cambridge Roundabout will require bold measures to make Hazelwood Lane safe for cycling.

southgate to palmers green cycling and walking routeEnfield Council's initial proposed route for the Southgate Circus to Palmers Green section of the planned new active travel route runs along High Street before going through the Meadway Estate to access Fox Lane

Enfield Council's Journeys and Places Team is inviting members of the public to input ideas and comments into the design of a new walking and cycling route from Southgate Station to Edmonton via Palmers Green, intended to plug one of the many remaining gaps in the borough's safe cycling network.

The Southgate Circus to Great Cambridge Junction Walking and Cycling Route will take advantage of the quietened streets in the Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) before crossing Green Lanes near the Fox pub and continuing along Hazelwood Lane and Connaught Gardens.

As stated on the Let's Talk Enfield website, the new route "will provide a quiet, safe, and secure route to encourage more people to choose to walk, wheel and cycle in the borough. This in turn will bring the benefits of keeping children and adults healthy and fit, reduce motor traffic, and improve air quality."

For this early stage of public engagement, the council is using an online tool which allows residents to input their views by placing coloured pins on a map. The map shows the council's initial proposals for the route, but without any detail of their thinking about the particular type of infrastructure used, eg segregated cycle lanes, improved junctions or road crossings etc. The draft route is surrounded by a wider shaded area, so presumably the public are invited to add pins anywhere within this area.

palmers green to edmonton cycling walkingFrom Palmers Green to the Cambridge Roundabout the early route proposal goes along Hazelwood Lane and the stretch of Connaught Gardens that runs parallel to the North Circular

The map will be available for public input until midnight on Sunday 30th April, following which

"We will be taking on board the feedback gathered which, along with early monitoring data and information, will inform the designs for the proposed walking and cycling route from Southgate to Great Cambridge Junction. We will develop a proposed plan that will be presented to the community later in 2023. Further development of the design and implementation will be subject to funding and statutory consultation."

In fact, according to a table (reproduced below) forming part of the Communication, Engagement and Consultation Plan, the council should be publishing its proposals before the end of this month.

Online Councillor and local MP Briefings

March 2023

Launch of project page on the Let’s Talk Enfield site

March 2023

Project updates provided to stakeholders

March 2023

Letter to residents within the impacted area introducing the plans and the project page

April 2023

Engagement with the community via an online map to collect issues and ideas

April 2023

Engagement summary produced and shared on the project page

April/May 2023

Design shared publicly on the project page

April 2023

Webinar prior to finalisation of feasibility design on the proposed plan with Q&A

May 2023

Monthly updates on project page, residents can subscribe to find out more

From April 2023

Social media / newsletter activity to communicate the information leaflet to wider geographic area

April 2023

How the new route will fit into the wider network

planned active travel routes through upper edmontonActive travel routes in Upper Edmonton linking to the planned route to Southgate Circus
NB. This map has no official status. The routes shown are not definitive and are only approximate

At the Cambridge Roundabout the new route will connect to existing cycle lanes which are built into the multilevel intersection between the North Circular Road (A406) and Great Cambridge Road (A10). Here it will join the planned Great Cambridge Junction to Bridport Road Walking and Cycling Route, which will provide a safe and quiet route to the North Middlesex Hospital and Upper Edmonton. At Bull Lane it will intersect with a major cycle route running north almost as far as Waltham Cross. Southbound, this route will eventually go all the way to the City of London, once a missing section in Tottenham is completed.

Palmers Green to the Cambridge Roundabout - how will it be made safer?

Traffic counts carried out in 2019 showed high volumes of "rat running" traffic travelling along Connaught Gardens and the bottom part of Hazelwood Lane. Unless this traffic is removed, it is hard to conceive that a safe cycling route could be created through this area

Between Southgate Circus and Palmers Green the new route will initially use segregated cycle lanes along High Street, before passing through the Fox Lane LTN, which already has little traffic and is free from the drivers who used to cut through the area paying scant regard to the speed limit. However, once the route crosses Green Lanes heading towards Edmonton, it's unclear what measures the council has in mind to to "provide a quiet, safe, and secure route". Currently, Hazelwood Lane, the route shown on the map, is a very unfriendly environment for anyone on a bike, but is probably too narrow for cycle lanes.

connaught gardens quieter neighbourhood proposal by enfield council november 2020Enfield Council's proposals dating from 2020 for an LTN in the Connaught Gardens Quieter Neighbourhood (click on the map for a larger version)In 2020, when the council was planning to create an LTN covering the entire triangular area bounded by Green Lanes, Hedge Lane and the North Circular, it published traffic counts which revealed (to no-one's great surprise) that large numbers of drivers were using Connaught Gardens and the bottom end of Hazelwood Lane to cut through between major roads (Hedge Lane and either the North Circular or Green Lanes).

Typical afternoon traffic cutting through from Hedge Lane via Connaught Gardens then turning right into Hazelwood Lane and then left into Callard Avenue or Chimes Avenue

People living nearby have been complaining for years about this traffic and in particular about drivers turning corners too fast. However, while a one-way system was introduced in 2020 to reduce traffic in the northernmost corner of the "Connaught Gardens Quieter Neighbourhood", the much more serious problems at the southern end have still not been addressed and it is unclear whether the council still intends to complete this project or instead shift its emphasis to tackling traffic problems elsewhere in the borough.

Realistically, though, it's hard to see how a safe cycle route could be run along Hazelwood Lane without either creating segregated bike lanes (difficult) or removing most of the traffic and slowing down the remainder, which would need an LTN along the lines of that proposed in 2020.

This article was amended on 5th April to add videos of traffic at the bottom end of Hazelwood Lane, filmed the same day.

The article was further amended on 18th April to reflect the new deadline for inputting via the interactive map - 30th April.

Log in to comment
Adrian Day posted a reply
05 Apr 2023 13:25
It's great more walking and cycling routes are coming forward. Agree that there will need to be significant calming east of Green Lanes. The ideal solution is full implementation of the Connaught Gardens LTN asap.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
05 Apr 2023 20:08
I think we shouldn't get too bogged down with the name of this project. Southgate Circus and the Cambridge Roundabout are just the two end points and the majority of users will only be travelling along part of the route. So the council shouldn't miss the opportunity to maximise the potential of a safe cycling route to Southgate Circus, which is an important hub for travel, work and shopping which currently has no satisfactory access by bike from anywhere.

I think that by running bike lanes along High Street only as far as Meadway, the council are missing a trick. Continue past Southgate Green, preferably as far as Cannon Road, and it will provide a link to the town centre for the large number of households in the Mall and Selborne Road, plus connectivity to Walker and St Monica's schools, Christ Church, the Walker Ground and the Minchenden Estate. Not to mention the boost it could give to the pub, shops and restaurants at Southgate Green.
David Beadle posted a reply
08 Apr 2023 12:27
As a frequent cyclist myself this entire scheme is based on false premises. It’s not wanted as a ‘leisure’ route - who wants to cycle to either congested traffic roundabout past sprawling suburban houses with big drives amidst speeding residents when there are so many parks nearby? For those making the journey already the existing direct route along Bourne Hill and Hedge Lane is better, with fewer junctions and places we have to stop: if people don’t want to cycle on the existing roads or within the LTNs then this scheme won’t encourage them to cycle more. By all means add a few cycle lanes within the LTNs if you want, but traffic is already too congested on the main roads surrounding them.
Like so many other LBE failures, this project has no SMART objectives, no MEL programme, and no evidence of the need to change anything. This is not how you change behaviours or reduce pollution. Indeed, the need to think about alternatives to Bourne Lane and Hedge Lane – and about the congestion at both destinations - is an admission of how the LTNs aren’t working, and of how the Green Lanes cycle lane hasn’t encouraged more users - this scheme won’t either.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
08 Apr 2023 19:40
David Beadle wrote (message 6809) :

As a frequent cyclist myself this entire scheme is based on false premises.


When it comes to "false premises", then David Beagle's comments are entirely based on them. And him being a cyclist doesn't change any facts.
David Beadle wrote (message 6809) :

It’s not wanted as a ‘leisure’ route.


Who said anything about "leisure cycling"? Most cycling is a way of getting from one place to another and not done for its own sake (though by cycling to get from A to B people also gain great health benefits that they wouldn't get from driving). The purpose of the new route is to provide safe new links, which could be used for all sorts of purposes, not least travelling to the North Mid by both staff and patients (no, not everyone arrives at hospital in an ambulance, the majority of patients are outpatients without disabilities that stop them walking or cycling).
David Beadle wrote (message 6809) :

...who wants to cycle to either congested traffic roundabout past sprawling suburban houses with big drives amidst speeding residents when there are so many parks nearby?


True, the Cambridge Roundabout is unlikely to be anyone's destination, at least not since the pub that the roundabout is named after was demolished as a sacrifice to the car god, but it is an important node connecting various routes, including, as I pointed out in the article, new cycle routes to the hospital and to a major north-south cycle route from the City to the northern boundary of London.

Close to the roundabout is the Millfield Theatre and the associated arts centre and stage school, plus a large school.

The speeding drivers are particularly present along Bourne Hill and Hedge Lane and are unlikely to be residents, who tend to treat their own street with more respect than strangers passing through other people's streets as quickly as they can.

Cyclists don't actually have to go round the congested roundabout - there are lanes beneath it for them.

As for the other end of the route, Southgate Circus, there's the station, a lot of shops, pubs and officers. Definitely a destination.

Many cyclists very sensibly don't want to go through parks, especially after dark. We have things called "roads" which are designed for making journeys, we just need them to be safe for all users, not just drivers. And how do you get from Palmers Green to Edmonton through parks anyway?
David Beadle wrote (message 6809) :

For those making the journey already the existing direct route along Bourne Hill and Hedge Lane is better, with fewer junctions and places we have to stop: if people don’t want to cycle on the existing roads or within the LTNs then this scheme won’t encourage them to cycle more.


Bourne Hill and Hedge Lane are not suitable for many people who wish to cycle, at least not until they have segregated lanes built along them. Both are notorious for speeding. There are too many dangerous drivers around.

Who says people don't want to cycle in LTNs? There are many more cyclists along Fox Lane than there used to be, and there would doubtless be many more if they could make their whole journey in safety. But if you want to cycle from PG to Southgate Station, once you get to the boundary of the LTN you either have to go along High Street or the Bourne, and both of these are unsuitable for many potential cyclists. This scheme will definitely encourage more cycling because it provides safe links that are currently just not there.
Tamer Sancar posted a reply
09 Apr 2023 12:19
Completely agree with David Beadle. Being frank this new proposed cycle lane is a stupid idea, probably pushed by the usual local travel campaigners.

The council must know it messed up big time with Southgate with the Fox Lane LTN. If the council has some money or sense left, they should focus their energy on improving the extra congestion and queues at Southgate (and the surrounding perimeter roads) caused directly by the Fox Lane LTN. Not listening to the vast majority of peoples experience and views and fudging the traffic increase figures to get away with it, is frankly shocking behaviour by Enfield council and the people of this area are unlikely to forgive or forget that. The proposed cycle lanes is the worst solution you can find for the problem.

If you want evidence of why cycle lanes will not work, you just need to look at the £50m or so spent on existing cycle lanes and shocking low level of cycling seen on the cycle lanes in palmers green, which takes up 30-40% of road space for just 2% of road users. The usage of current Palmers Green cycle lanes is frankly embarrassing for the millions spent on it, and falls way short of the "cycling revolution" it promised.

If you want to improve active travel for vast majority of people then remove the Fox Lane LTN asap and make investment in better pavements for walking and local parks and leisure facilities so everyone can enjoy it. Almost everyone walks but just 2-3% cycle. More objective assessment of the low use of the current cycle lanes to justify the £50m spent on them should be made before deciding if it's worth wasting more of our money. We also have a challenging financial environment with our council tax rising by maximum amount as the council can’t afford frontline services, and building more very expensive empty cycle lanes is not the answer.
Neil Littman posted a reply
09 Apr 2023 12:24
Regardless of the issues or story being discussed I don't think it is very encouraging or inclusive for local residents to give their feedback when they end up being told by the editor of the newsletter what they think of their opinions. It removes any incentive to have an even handed debate. I think PGCN is forgetting about the importance of the word 'Community' in the title of the newsletter and that by criticising the views of local residents it is removing any incentive to respond to articles and also a reason why there is so little in the way of feedback from the residents of Palmers Green to virtually any story that appears on these pages. I write both for and to local and national press either in the form of articles or letters and have never received a personal reply from an editor publicly disagreeing with my views after they have agreed to publish articles.
Tamer Sancar posted a reply
09 Apr 2023 16:56
Well said Neil. This site just seems to be the cycling campaigners echo chamber and not “community” in any way. The moderator even refuses to print my comments about this scheme as it may be too close to the truth for their liking,
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
09 Apr 2023 19:21
Tamer Sancar wrote (message 6813) :

Well said Neil. This site just seems to be the cycling campaigners echo chamber and not “community” in any way. The moderator even refuses to print my comments about this scheme as it may be too close to the truth for their liking,


So this is the thanks I get for paying a large amount of money out of my own pocket and a huge amount of time to run this website.

You're jumping to conclusions. Your post this afternoon was automatically blocked by a system designed to stop spammers filling the forum with adverts for viagra and diamonds. I've been out all afternoon and only saw it just now and have let it through. However, in view of your rudeness about a free service that I offer, and your failure to say anything remotely new you are banned from now on. (Only the fourth person to be banned.)
Basil Clarke posted a reply
09 Apr 2023 20:05
Neil Littman wrote (message 6812) :

Regardless of the issues or story being discussed I don't think it is very encouraging or inclusive for local residents to give their feedback when they end up being told by the editor of the newsletter what they think of their opinions. It removes any incentive to have an even handed debate. I think PGCN is forgetting about the importance of the word 'Community' in the title of the newsletter and that by criticising the views of local residents it is removing any incentive to respond to articles and also a reason why there is so t little in the way of feedback from the residents of Palmers Green to virtually any story that appears on these pages. I write both for and to local and national press either in the form of articles or letters and have never received a personal reply from an editor publicly disagreeing with my views after they have agreed to publish articles.


So, I'm not allowed to join in the debate on a website that only exists because I pay a lot of money to run it and on which I expend many hours of work every week?

I think Neil has misunderstood the nature of this website.

I'm not the editor of a newspaper, paid for their work. I'm someone who is voluntarily spending large amounts of time and money on promulgating information about events and other news to the community with the aim of being helpful. That's a completely different kettle of fish. And I am part of the community and entitled to have opinions.

I distinguish between articles and comments written as Webmaster, which are straight reporting of information, and articles and comments where I express my personal views. The latter I write under my own name.

David Beadle set out some criticisms of a scheme which I support. I did not criticise David personally, I explained why I thought his points were invalid. I disagreed with his criticisms and proffered reasoned arguments as to why I thought he was wrong. Some people will agree with him, some with me, others with neither of us. That's called debate, and if he can find holes in my arguments, then he's welcome to point them out.

As for me, I'd appreciate more thanks and less looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Andrew Smith posted a reply
10 Apr 2023 09:50
Thank you for an informative article Basil. The whole thing relating to active travel / segregation of cycle routes / LTNs within this area is dividing our community.

I don't assume many people are against the ethos of active travel - but it is the manner in which these schemes are being "introduced" which is causing the most division. Fox Lane LTN, for example, was plonked in and a flawed set of data being used to extol its virtues.

This new plan for an active walkway between Cambridge Circus and Southgate Circus is - let's be honest - laughable. How many residents of the area around Cambridge Circus want to travel ON FOOT to Southgate for "shopping" ? Surely they'd go to Tottenham / Wood green where there are many more bus-routes than the single route via W6 to Southgate? With respect, as a resident of Southgate/Palmers Green for almost 20 years, I've never had cause to go the other way, into the Cambridge Roundabout, for anything except to access the A406. Would people walk that route for LEISURE? I doubt it, what is there except houses to walk past! One might DRIVE to Cockfosters/Trent Park or down the A10 to green areas round LEe Valley if they were in search of a nice place to walk.

This brings us to cycling route. I am all for it, great idea. Truly, I am a big believer in proper cycle lanes - I've seen them work well in Poland, Holland and France. But we don't seem to have the space in London unfortunately. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is a lot of division caused by the LTN as it is, so doubling down on a cycle route, will, I suspect cause more anxiety. Please can someone show the evidence that the people who claim they want it, will use it. I run regularly around Southgate / Fox Lane LTN and I almost never see cyclists using the area within the LTN. Therefore, if the cyclists are not using it as an LTN, what is the point in investing more there? Better to fix the pavements, I've tripped whilst running on a couple of occasions too many due to the various haphazard paving slabs.

To be clear, properly thought through cycle lanes would be LOVELY, but this seems a luxury when one can consider to first, fix the pavements, sort the bus routes so they aren't held up in the (ironically greater since LTN) traffic and improve parking somehow so people can visit areas, leave the car and go for a walk ()

Again, thank you for the article.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
11 Apr 2023 14:18
An interesting contribution by Andrew. There's a lot to unpick and my time is limited, so I'll post my thoughts in batches, starting with his criticism of the concept of a Southgate to Edmonton active travel route.
Andrew Smith wrote (message 6816) :

This new plan for an active walkway between Cambridge Circus and Southgate Circus is - let's be honest - laughable. How many residents of the area around Cambridge Circus want to travel ON FOOT to Southgate for "shopping"?


I'm pretty sure that the answer to that precise question is zero or close to zero. But that's missing the point of putting in new routes. As I've already pointed out:
Basil Clarke wrote (message 6805) :

I think we shouldn't get too bogged down with the name of this project. Southgate Circus and the Cambridge Roundabout are just the two end points and the majority of users will only be travelling along part of the route.


Andrew surely doesn't think that the only purpose of the M1 is for it to be used by people driving the entire way from London to Leeds? In the same way as drivers use shorter or longer stretches of the M1 as part of millions of individual journeys, people walking or cycling will be using sections of the new route as all or part of many different journeys.

While I agree that few if any people would follow the whole route on foot, that's not true of people riding bikes, for instance people living in Southgate and working at the North Mid (plenty of NHS workers ride bikes or would like to if it were safer) or other parts of Edmonton or Tottenham, or students travelling to the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London in Tottenham.

With respect, as a resident of Southgate/Palmers Green for almost 20 years, I've never had cause to go the other way, into the Cambridge Roundabout, for anything except to access the A406. Would people walk that route for LEISURE?


Speaking as another resident of Palmers Green, and also "with respect", I have walked from my home not far from Green Lanes to the Cambridge Roundabout and beyond on multiple occasions, not for leisure but to get somewhere - mainly to get to the North Mid, but sometimes just to explore the area beyond on foot.

Why walk when I could drive, cycle or catch the bus?

Firstly, because I don't ride a bike (too nervous) and I've never learnt to drive. In my case, because I choose not to, but there are huge numbers of people who don't have the option of driving. In some cases, because they can't afford a car or someone else in the family needs to use the car, in other cases because they're too young to drive, in other cases because they have a medical condition (eg epilepsy or vision problems). The bias in transport planning discriminates against such people - particularly outside London, where levels of public transport are derisory, passing traffic is uncomfortably fast for pedestrians and many stretches of road have no pavement.

Secondly, I could catch the bus, and I often do. But by walking, I'm killing two birds with one stone. I need to get from A to B for some reason (and often I need to know how long it will take to get there, which is unpredictable with buses), but I also need to walk to stay healthy, both in body and mind (as recommended over and over by medical experts). Though, as you say, the walk to the Cambridge Roundabout is rather dull, that doesn't entirely preclude getting pleasure from the walk, from observing things as I go by, from looking at flowers in people's gardens... My philosophy is to always aim to get something out of journeys, not just their destinations, and as a pedestrian or bus passenger I don't have to focus on the road ahead but can observe the world as I pass through it or let my mind wander.

I often have to travel to parts of Southgate, mainly around Southgate Green. Prior to the LTN, I would mostly use the bus, because the huge amount of traffic along Fox Lane and the need to cross junctions took away the pleasure from walking. Now I invariably walk. I enjoy the bracing walk up the hill and the relaxing return to Palmers Green. I see plenty of other people walking significant distances up Fox Lane - mostly faster than me, as I'm 72 and don't walk as fast as I used to. It takes me 20 minutes to Southgate Green from east of Green Lanes, 30 minutes to Southgate Circus.

One might DRIVE to Cockfosters/Trent Park or down the A10 to green areas round Lee Valley if they were in search of a nice place to walk.


I often go to those places for a walk, they're easily reached by public transport. And getting there by public transport is better than driving because you don't need to do a circular walk - for instance, I can get the bus to Enfield Lock and then walk through the Lee Valley and Epping Forest to Chingford, where I can catch the bus back to Enfield. Closer to home, I can go to Oakwood, walk through Trent Park (the southern part near Oakwood is very tranquil, too far from the car parks, I suppose) and then follow the newly created route through Enfield Chase and end up at Chase Farm Hospital, from where I can easily get home by bus.

But there are some excellent walks from PG, eg following the Pymmes Brook through Broomfield Park, Arnos Park, the Waterfall Walk, Brunswick Park to Oak Hill Wood nature reserve. For a shorter walk, there's Grovelands Park within easy reach.

There's absolutely no need to drive and contribute towards the looming climate disaster to go for a nice walk.
Karl Brown posted a reply
12 Apr 2023 09:09
I must be well into my 3rd decade of hearing the same message set. It’s inevitably of the form, I support active travel (often add in, I’m a cyclist to add weight), but this latest idea / scheme (insert latest eg 20mph zone, street closure, planter, cycle lane, LTN, speed bump, other) is (insert adverse view), and also (add in some whataboutary possible to link to scheme / idea in question). Cover imposed new thing / dodgy data / terrible council / others not listening / no consultation / crooked consultation / other. Draw out the point that it will impact on existing vehicle traffic and so can’t even be considered a viable option. This latter is the real deal breaker, because how anyone can install a new active travel supporting idea without impacting on the present system makes the whole thing redundant. Hence save the budget and do (insert latest wheeze, it was even more police in an early wave) instead. QED as they say in maths.
What has certainly changed has been the huge amplification of this message by social media in the last decade, to the extent that two nearby houses having different views mean the scheme “divides our community”. No, vehicles travelling from A to B, if doing so inappropriately, usually too fast, or when massing in numbers, divide community. Take the two sides of the north circular as a perfect example. But the division point here is one of personal choice. Many have made it to adverse effect to us all.
And until there’s a breakout from the psychological noose of, I support active travel but don’t expect any change to my driving options, I can only envisage another three decades of the same. That said, with this area, borough, city and nation on a pathway to make driving more difficult while simultaneously raising the importance of people not behind the wheel it’ll only be a tougher path ahead.
Adrian Day posted a reply
12 Apr 2023 22:21
As someone who regularly cycles from Palmers Green to the 'Theatre of Disappointment' on Tottenham High Road I look forward to both the PG to Great Cambridge section (much of which is currently dangerous to cycle) - and the extension beyond.
Ann Jones posted a reply
13 Apr 2023 11:23
What is fascinating is the lack of evidence to support the claim for cycling in LTN yet the Council wants to plough ahead with this scheme. The Fox Lane LTN proved that 1. Cycling increased more in the wider area where there is NO LTN than in Fox Lane LTN and 2. cycling on boundary roads increased substantially more than in Fox Lane LTN. Meanwhile PG cycle lane counts remain stubbornly low. Flatlining at best. The reality is the Council doesnt have the evidence to support further expenditure on cycling infrastructure. The Council should focus specifically on pedestrians and bus users as these are by far the most used form of sustainable travel. Cycle infrastructure unfortunately often comes at the detriment of these two groups by reducing pavement space for pedestrians and introducing cycle lanes in front of bus stops putting bus users in danger, plus delaying buses in the extra congestion.
Karl Brown posted a reply
14 Apr 2023 08:18
There are two fundamentally different approaches to transport infrastructure: firstly, that of meeting demand. The UK followed this in building more and more roads for several decades to satisfy increasing traffic volumes. They filled up, often simply moving the bottlenecks elsewhere. It was concluded to be a failed approach. The second is to build infrastructure to generate demand. HMGs approach to the latter is outlined in various iterations of a document called something like the cycling and walking investment strategy. Wording has been finessed over iterations but basically headlines, “to make walking and cycling the first choice for shorter journeys or as part of a longer journey”. That’s what is going on. LBE are not building to meet existing demand, rather they are building to fuel future use in line with, and most likely ultimately funded by, HMG’s long-established strategy.
In that vein, the obvious pathway would probably to join existing major hubs, hence the Southgate / Cambridge roundabout and now the PG station / New Southgate station via Arnos Grove station proposed route.
Andrew Smith posted a reply
16 Apr 2023 08:04
Thank you for your response Basil.

You state:
"Andrew surely doesn't think that the only purpose of the M1 is for it to be used by people driving the entire way from London to Leeds? In the same way as drivers use shorter or longer stretches of the M1 as part of millions of individual journeys, people walking or cycling will be using sections of the new route as all or part of many different journeys."

I agree with your point entirely Basil. People use the infrastructure between two points, I get it.

"While I agree that few if any people would follow the whole route on foot, that's not true of people riding bikes, for instance people living in Southgate and working at the North Mid (plenty of NHS workers ride bikes or would like to if it were safer) or other parts of Edmonton or Tottenham, or students travelling to the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London in Tottenham."

Why, therefore has the number of cycle journeys increased at such a pathetic rate since the Fox Lane LTN was introduced? The Enfield council data shows one-way journeys only increased from 8 JOURNEYs to 24 JOURNEYs with a 24 HOUR period - this suggests 4 people doing a round trip before, to 12 people after (and I think we all know some certain cyclists who might be individually responsible for the entire increase....by doing laps)


As you said "Speaking as another resident of Palmers Green, and also "with respect", I have walked from my home not far from Green Lanes to the Cambridge Roundabout and beyond on multiple occasions, not for leisure but to get somewhere - mainly to get to the North Mid, but sometimes just to explore the area beyond on foot."

I understand that (and your very understandable reasons for doing so) I also understand your point about using the bus prior to the LTN "I often have to travel to parts of Southgate, mainly around Southgate Green. Prior to the LTN, I would mostly use the bus, because the huge amount of traffic along Fox Lane and the need to cross junctions took away the pleasure from walking"

We've seen bus times increase since the LTN, so I cannot blame you for not choosing the bus anymore, as travel times have increased for the bus (due to LTN traffic). Furthermore, if you already walk within the LTN area, where there are now less cars, what does this new scheme do to - materially - improve things (whilst not diverting money from other, more needed initiatives to improve safety along Wynchgate/The High Street for example)? What is wrong with using the pavement to walk as 99.9% of people nationwide do? I think I would agree that the paving slabs ought to be sorted out (some are a trip hazard), but do we need an official "walk route" in addition to the LTN when there are other, IMO more important uses for the council's money.

One might DRIVE to Cockfosters/Trent Park or down the A10 to green areas round Lee Valley if they were in search of a nice place to walk.


I often go to those places for a walk, they're easily reached by public transport. And getting there by public transport is better than driving because you don't need to do a circular walk - for instance, I can get the bus to Enfield Lock and then walk through the Lee Valley and Epping Forest to Chingford, where I can catch the bus back to Enfield. Closer to home, I can go to Oakwood, walk through Trent Park (the southern part near Oakwood is very tranquil, too far from the car parks, I suppose) and then follow the newly created route through Enfield Chase and end up at Chase Farm Hospital, from where I can easily get home by bus.

I agree with all of the above. What does the walk way do to assist with that (whilst being mindful of existing infrastructure)?

But there are some excellent walks from PG, eg following the Pymmes Brook through Broomfield Park, Arnos Park, the Waterfall Walk, Brunswick Park to Oak Hill Wood nature reserve. For a shorter walk, there's Grovelands Park within easy reach.

Excellent, agree entirely

There's absolutely no need to drive and contribute towards the looming climate disaster to go for a nice walk.[/quote]

Understood, get the bus, I am with you there. Shame, however, bus journey times increased due to LTN displacing traffic onto other roads
https://governance.enfield.gov.uk/documents/s91038/PL%2022.072%20P%20-%20Appendix%201%20Post%20Scheme%20Monitoring%20002%20-%2026%20JAN%2022.pdf
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
18 Apr 2023 23:42
The deadline for submitting views and ideas via the interactive map has now been extended until 30th April.
Adrian Day posted a reply
19 Apr 2023 12:54
You do know Palmers Green Community is run by one dedicated and committed individual who devotes a huge amount of time each week to writing and sharing helpful content, supporting local organisations? And that just about every online and offline publication in existence has an editor who writes editorials giving a point of view? Not sure why Basil should take lectures from anyone on what he can and cant do with his website.
Nicola Scott posted a reply
20 Apr 2023 07:27
As often a pedestrian (not a car owner and over 65)I feel prompted to say that I really appreciate the introduction of Cycle lanes. In my experience they have increased flexibility in the use of space. People commonly walk in them, yes that needs to be mindful and managed but it isn't like walking in a space of cars. They have meant cars are further away from pedestrians and after decades of proximity to unaddressed pollution that is a relief. Crossing side roads is safer and calmer as drivers are less likely to assume right of way.
I can't say I have noticed much change in hold ups for buses. As usual the congestion comes from cars, with or without Cycle lanes.
I really want to see cycle lanes succeed. Cycling shouldn't be something we teach children only to have a culture that tells them tell them not to use the skill outside of being a leisure activity. It's healthy and cheap and benefits society.
Darren Edgar posted a reply
20 Apr 2023 11:29
Ann Jones wrote (message 6821) :

What is fascinating is the lack of evidence to support the claim for cycling in LTN yet the Council wants to plough ahead with this scheme. The Fox Lane LTN proved that 1. Cycling increased more in the wider area where there is NO LTN than in Fox Lane LTN and 2. cycling on boundary roads increased substantially more than in Fox Lane LTN. Meanwhile PG cycle lane counts remain stubbornly low. Flatlining at best. The reality is the Council doesnt have the evidence to support further expenditure on cycling infrastructure. The Council should focus specifically on pedestrians and bus users as these are by far the most used form of sustainable travel. Cycle infrastructure unfortunately often comes at the detriment of these two groups by reducing pavement space for pedestrians and introducing cycle lanes in front of bus stops putting bus users in danger, plus delaying buses in the extra congestion.


That graphic shows an upwards trend FYI.....
Darren Edgar posted a reply
20 Apr 2023 11:32
Lots of predictable responses. All in advance of any actual details.

It will be a load of rubbish I bet. So a fuss over nothing. Bit of paint on the ground for cyclists, which drivers will ignore, and the odd sign and walkway for pedestrians which won't actually make the route any more pleasant to walk.

No segregation. No filtering. No point.
David Beadle posted a reply
11 May 2023 06:14
Unfortunately that's not how strategies to change behaviours work Karl. And the DfT has had the evidence for this for over a decade (I should know - they paid me to provide it).
Karl Brown posted a reply
11 May 2023 09:36
David Beadle offers me guidance. I was installed at the bequest of a major UK body to run what was then Europe’s largest behavioral change programme, so I’m a little more clued up than most on such things but I’m always willing to learn yet can’t relate your guidance to anything particular on here. Perhaps you can assist.

Find us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Clicky