Healthy Streets

I'm sorry that the images of the retail street are low definition, and fall apart when enlarged. I'v been promised better quality ones which I will post when I get them.

I know that LBE has been keen not to suggest that they have made up their minds about a particular solution, but I think that if they had shared these potential layouts then some of the heat might have been taken out of the local debate. I don't know how open LBE is to otrher possible layouts (or indeed whether any are possible).

In their nature they don't indicate how, along the length of the shopping area, bus stops might be distributed or what provision there might be for pedestrians crossing these lay outs. My immediate feeling is that different cross sections will probably have different options/possibilities. If I'm right that should be in the next step for consultation.

Also, this doesn't tell me how the Triangle will be treated. It was good to see that the display at the Fox included reference to the responses to the 2012 Palmers Green public realm consultation (more about which can be found elsewhere on PGC), which supported the retention and improvement of the Triangle.

It seems like they added all the choices to inflate number the options, but really most of them are nonsense. Any cycle track that would require buses crossing it to stop or drivers to cross to park is a big no no. I'm amazed they are even suggested. The other possibility of a cycle track on the centre of the road might work but it seems people aren't really comfortable in that sort of position and it is hard to imagine how junctions could work. It would also make it harder to enter the cycle track and pedestrain crossings could be more complicated.

The armadillos seemed sturdier than the ones in Royal College Street, but again they aren't car proof. We will have to rely on sensible parking or enforcement; I'm not holding my breath. It really is the cheap option.

The other problem with armadillos is the perceived risk. If people don't feel safe cycling ( especially groups other than the 20-40 range) then we are really hampering the opportunity to increase cycling in Enfield.

A disturbing posibility is that they can be removed very easily if the scheme fails. What 'fails' means is obviously open to interpretation, but it must be noted that a lower quality scheme ( which is what armadillos are) will invariably result in a lower usage.

Of course when the scheme gets finally built it is by no means a complete network, so many more roads will need to have infrastructure if we are to capitalise on the the success of the initial routes.