Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

Written by: Basil Clarke | Published: 08 November 2019

fox lane ltn proposal nov 2019 Enfield Council's plans for the low-traffic neighbourhood. Cars can only enter the area via one end of Fox Lane or the other, and can only leave the same way. Bus gates will allow the W9 to run through the area, and the gate in Fox Lane will also let through emergency vehicles.

Ahead of the public exhibition on Tuesday 12th November (3pm to 8pm in the former Starbucks shop), Enfield Council has published a map of its proposals for removing through traffic from the Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood (reproduced above), along with some of the explanatory material that will be on show (see the box below). The scheme is such that, if implemented, all addresses in the area will continue to be accessible by car, but it will no longer be possible for drivers to enter the area at one location and leave it at another, ie drive through the area. People on foot or riding bikes won't be affected by the "filters" at the ends of roads, which will let them through, but once past the barriers will find their journey considerably quieter, safer and pleasanter. Greatly reduced traffic within the area will also reduce air pollution and make the streets quieter for those living there.

Currently a high proportion of the traffic using these residential streets is simply cutting through the area, creating noise, unhealthy air and road danger, and inhibiting human-level interaction in the area, which includes two beautiful conservation areas. Traffic counts carried out in 2018 measured 42,000 vehicle movements a week along Fox Lane, 30,000 along Meadway and 26,000 in Amberley Road. During the busiest hour of the day a car passes along The Mall, Old Park Road and Amberley Road every nine seconds - exposing children on their way home from school to physical danger and forcing them to breathe in air containing noxious gases and particles. Hence the need for drastic measures.

On Tuesday residents are invited to drop in and review the plans, speak to council officers and leave comments. At the same time as the physical event, comments will also be able to be made online. Based on this feedback, the council will review the plans.

The next stage will be "a period of statutory consultation and/or a trial", scheduled to start in spring 2020. This probably means that the council will use experimental traffic orders to authorise the placement of the blockages at the ends of roads - this can be done without a statutory consultation - and run both the trial and the formal statutory consultation concurrently. The advantage of this is that people will be able to comment and object on the basis of how the scheme actually works in practice, rather than making assumptions. The intention is to run the trial for six months, allowing everyone to assess its longer-term impacts, both positive and negative. Depending on the final assessment, the scheme may be made permanent, modified or completely removed.

Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood: Public exhibition information*

The Journey so far

Local residents have concerns over too much traffic travelling too fast through residential streets in the Fox Lane area.
The Council have previously implemented a trial using planters in an effort to discourage traffic cutting through the area. This was unsuccessful.
The Council have committed to a further trial to take a more robust approach. Those plans are on show today.

The Project Stages

Stage 1
Ask residents to share their ideas on problems and potential solutions in their area.

Stage 2
The Council will review these ideas and develop some plans.

Stage 3 (Now)
The Council will host a public event to explain the plans and provide an opportunity for residents to comment.

Stage 4
The Council will then conduct a further review of the plans.

Stage 5 (Spring 2020)
A period of statutory consultation and/or a trial will take place.

Stage 6
Decisions and implementation of the plans in a particular area.

Stage 7 (Autumn 2020)
Where appropriate, monitor and review post implementation

The outcomes

Benefits

Through traffic removed
Calmer & quieter streets
Safer neighbourhood
Greener and cleaner environments and air
Improved public realm
Increased physical activity
More connected communities

Dis-benefits

Slightly longer journeys to access homes
Increased vehicle levels on primary roads
Possible reduction in street parking in some areas

The next steps

Over the next few weeks the plan for Fox Lane will be finalised and a decision made (by a formal report) on implementation.

The first decision on whether to implement the trial is expected by early in the New Year. If implementation is to take place this would occur in Spring 2020, with the experimental period lasting until Autumn 2020

The intention is to trial this plan on an experimental basis. This means that the plan is introduced for a minimum of 6 months and during this time, residents can make formal comments.

At the end of the experimental period a decision is made on the project, which could be:

Remove the scheme entirely
Make some amendments to the scheme
Make the scheme permanent

*Source: https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/2734/documents/3265

Links

Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood page on Enfield Council website

Fox Lane area traffic counts and speed data (Palmers Green Community)

Low-traffic neighbourhoods (London Living Streets)

Discussion about the plans on the Better Streets for Enfield Facebook page

Posts in discussion: Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4876

10 Nov 2019 09:04

This is progressive. As I’ve posted several times over several years, London's agreed (necessary) transition from cars being the primary focus of public realm development to their currently agreed position of the lowest means of movement on transports modal hierarchy is going to mean major readjustments. It’s going to be important not to get lost in the micro of this particular scheme but rather see it as a relatively early mover of the types of UK-wide (but city and London in particular) pressures to get away from sole-use cars and onto other transport means for a large part of our movement needs.
Newer residential estates, our own Leigh Hunt and slightly further away the development around the Friern Barnet hospital, are vehicles in-and-out but not through developments – exactly as is now proposed to be retrofitted to the wider Fox Lane area.
The modal shift we are now experiencing has well-rehearsed arguments behind it, ones that have been successfully evidenced and will very soon form part of London’s spatial framework, and need no rehearsal. Recent climate emergency acknowledgements will only accelerate the pressure for change.
Doubtless there will be some unintended consequences of this scheme, and just as likely some unintended benefits. Those the trial will reveal. Until then it’s probably a time for reflective input rather than the community eroding off-the-hip, typically non-evidenced, anger we all witnessed with cycle lanes.

PGC Webmaster posted a reply

#4878

10 Nov 2019 23:09

A group of residents who support creating a low-traffic neighbourhood in the Fox Lane area are looking for volunteers to post flyers through doors and talk to neighbours.

If you are interested, you should contact .

steven downes posted a reply

#4882

11 Nov 2019 18:44

Whilst I agree with the principle of the quieter neighbourhood scheme. This scheme is not particularly green with residents having to drive further. Would it not make more sense to close the roads at the Fox lane end of each road

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4884

11 Nov 2019 20:49

I guess there are many options. i believe the Local Authority came to the pilot option on the basis of traffic flow data and recent point-to-point video evidence, so i presume there was some "this end or that end" consideration in getting to where we currently are.
I'd suggest the real green sustainability win would be seen not in relative vehicle miles but instead in modal shift, ie less school runs, more walking and cycling, so removing some vehicle traffic miles altogether; part of the pilot measurement indicator suite i would hope.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4885

11 Nov 2019 23:33

I walked into a shop on Southgate Green this morning to buy a newspaper to hear two women nearly as old as me (I'm 82) discussing these proposals. Roughly translated the bones of the discussion were: "What a silly idea; where does the Council get them from? I'll be going to the proposals/consultation tomorrow afternoon. ". Which I suppose will be the sort of response of many car-bound people who can't imagine the issues from emissions to kids freedoms.

I began opening my mouth to make a response, but my wife was already tugging at my sleeve because we had other fish to fry, and we were late. Perhaps I'll come across them again tomorrow afternoon.

Meanwhile the incident demonstrates just how far the needs of cars have come to dominate people's priorities. With the next bout of local authority elections in mind you can see why Council's are cautious.

Personally I see residential streets as part of home; never mind 20mph speed limits I think traffic should be even lower. These streets should be people places.

David Berkovitch posted a reply

#4886

12 Nov 2019 11:55

Regardless of being car bound or not, everyone's jounrey will be made longer as traffic is forced into existing traffic jams up Alderman's Hill, Green lanes and Bourne Hill all of which are already heavily congested. Therefore the proposal will have a negative impact on the environment, health and the community - the opposite of its intended legacy. For most the streets in the lakes estate, the issue is primarily one of speeding, so futher speed enforcements (20mph) make more sense in my view.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4887

12 Nov 2019 14:16

My understanding is that the data collection identified entry/exit points for the Lakes roads. Therefore it wasn't just speeding (and, by your implication, the residents' own traffic) but the data showed it was rat runners. People weren't driving 50MPH+ to pull up outside their own house - it was drivers entering at one end and shooting out the other.

Can't afford to sit police on every street so the only other enforcement would be a camera, or two, on every road. Which Enfield have never had an appetite for (repeatedly petitioned for an Aldermans Hill).

Jenny Perkins posted a reply

#4888

12 Nov 2019 18:49

I am a Southgate resident, living near Meadway. I already use public transport for a large percentage of my travel. Currently, that involves walking along High Street to the tube, breathing in fumes from queues of traffic that are often queuing from Southgate Circus to Blagdens Close/The Close because of significant congestion on Southgate Circus, usually caused by one or more car parking badly on Chase Side and snarling the whole thing up.

I do use my car locally to transport my disabled husband, and we do use the Meadway cut-through, so as to keep the overall journey distance down and to avoid causing unnecessary pollution by idling in the queues on High Street, trying to get to Southgate Circus. I also walk along Meadway when going to the park on my own when my husband is too ill to get out.

If you really want to reduce pollution, you will take action on congestion in Southgate Circus/High Street by enforcing legal parking effectively on Chase Side. The problem in the Fox Lane area is not really pollution. It is a lovely, leafy area and when I walk there, I never have to breathe in car fumes in the way that I regularly do on High Street.

Forget this idea, which will only increase overall pollution in the local area and do what is actually needed in the Fox Lane area, i.e. traffic calming and speed bumps. The problem is not pollution but excessive speed. This can adequately be solved by well thought through traffic calming.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4889

12 Nov 2019 18:51

Everyone's journey won't be made longer - not everyone drives . In fact roughly half the population of Enfield do not drive. People who walk and cycle will have easier journeys as there'll be less rat-running vehicles - an average of 2947 vehicles a day down Old Park Road for example. Walkers will be able to cross more easily - especially at the ends of roads and more people will be encouraged to walk or cycle so fewer car journeys, less pollution, less noise and less danger. The plan is for Enfield to have lots more LTNs like this - which is great.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4890

12 Nov 2019 18:56

The problem is manifold - excessive speed, pollution, noise and danger - 2947 rat running vehicles down Old Park Road on average every day just now. 20 mph won't stop the rat runners. The proposed plan will address these issues - and reduce vehicle usage as people realise that for many short journeys walking and cycling is quicker and easier. Every road remains accessible and open - you just can't rat run.

Neil Littman posted a reply

#4892

12 Nov 2019 19:03

Probably too late to say this but council officers have been told not to be present at the meeting to discuss the low traffic scheme due to purdah being in operation due to the upcoming election. This information was supplied by Cllr Dinah Barry.

Colin Younger posted a reply

#4893

12 Nov 2019 19:28

This is a bit of an essay, on the subject “reflections on quieter neighbourhoods”.

There seems to me to be two issues about traffic in the Lakes Estate, speeds and volume.
Speed could be dealt with by various means, for example speed humps or cushions. This might reduce volume, but would probably not have a significant effect. (Are there any figures on speed/volume following the installation of speed humps on Fox Lane? Will these be removed under the latest scheme?)
So far two other measures have been tried. The one still in place are the raised cross-overs along Aldermans Hill. I can’t see how anyone could believe that these would have any effect on speed or volume of traffic though they do signal the priority for pedestrians. This might be thought an expensive solution to that problem. (Will these be removed if roads are closed off?)

The much maligned planters might have had an effect on volumes, but since only half the planned numbers were deployed I don’t accept that the “experiment” could be showed to have failed. If this is a 6 month trial the closure structures must be capable of being removed. I wonder whether the new road obstacles are going to be planters reborn.

As to the new scheme, it will certainly cut rat running and to that extent peak volumes. However, given the extent of car ownership in the estate, speed could still be a problem, perhaps exacerbated by attempts to make up for time lost by navigating the reduced entry/exit routes.

I’m not convinced about the direct comparison with Walthamstow and Blackhorse areas. As I understand it, they have a much lower car ownership, and perhaps crucially have schools within their areas. This automatically reduces local traffic levels. Like it or not residents with children will still need to leave the area by car and at peak times the two exits will be likely to be jammed.

I wonder whether a slight modification would make life easier for residents without significantly increasing through volumes. That is by replacing the Fox Lane barrier by a road narrowing restriction. Keeping the road humps would continue (?) to help reduce speeds. Perhaps a few more would help.

A minor matter has the effect of the closures on waste collection been factored in? Unless I’ve misunderstand it, won’t it double the journeys, as they will need to drive in and reverse out of each road, as will the increasing number of delivery vehicles.

However, if the problems faced by residents in Old Park Road, Grovelands and Amberley Roads are to be dealt with, it can’t be done without an impact on other residents.

Lots to mull over.

Comments on the proposals are open until the weekend at https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/foxlaneQN
NB This is not the statutory consultation which will be run next year as I understand it.

George Satanas posted a reply

#4894

12 Nov 2019 21:46

I feel residents would be better served locating the barriers in the centre of each Road rather than at the end of each.
Ideally we'd have automated barriers operaple only by the residents of each Road.
For example, an automated barrier on The Mall could be on accessed by The Mall residents only.; traffic reduced with no disruption to residents. Too expensive? Would residents pay for a small fee for the pleasure of safer, quieter and cleaner roads?

wesley ashwell posted a reply

#4895

13 Nov 2019 12:28

I agree, largely, with David Berkovich's comments. I live on Cranley Gardens and have cause to pay frequent visits to Aldermans Pharmacy. At the moment it is a simple journey via Fox lane and Old Park Road, but the Council's loony plan(where do they get them from?) will require me to go via Fox lane, Bourne Hill, Southgate roundabout,(which will be even busier and therefore worse to negotiate than it is now,) High Street and Aldermans Hill - and that's just the journey there!
Additionally, in the cause of quieter streets and less pollution, why does the Council - in collaboration with the bus company - not make the W9 route only ONE WAY along Cranley Gardens? I do not underate the value of this amenity, but for too long this road has borne the brunt of three buses an hour IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, which frequently results in chaotic traffic congestion problems.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4896

13 Nov 2019 16:06

It will still be a simple journey via Fox Lane and Old Park Road but by foot or bike (and a journey that will be a lot safer using these modes within the LTN).
Three buses an hour carrying several people is a lot less polluting than the hundreds of cars that use it each day and the nearly 7000 vehicles a day that cut through Fox Lane. Think if every bus passenger drove? If we are to address climate change, obesity, pollution related illnesses and road deaths/injuries we need more people (those that are able) making the short journey you describe by foot, bike or public transport.

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4897

13 Nov 2019 17:02

From the Mid-point of Cranley there and back for the mentioned journey is just over 1.5km. It makes me think of the table in the Enfield’s original winning bid highlighting the share of such journeys. Something like 30% of all car journeys are of this length. Take a good slice of those out of the total through people walking or cycling, where they are physically able to do so, and which is the vast majority, and we would see a hugely different landscape and a healthier population too.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4898

13 Nov 2019 17:47

For anybody who has to use a vehicle for work, do school runs with small children , make large supermarket shops and travel beyond Southgate Circus this is going to add a great deal of journey time and add further congestion , pollution and stress to the local area. Consequently this will also make bus journeys longer as they sit in the same jams.
Anybody wanting to access the North Circular or travel in the direction of Friern Barnet,Whetstone and Finchley will now have to travel via an already massively congested Southgate circus leading to massive tailbacks down Bourne Hill . The return rush hour journey along Cannon Hill ( which can already see tail backs as far as the Cherry Tree) will make a previously two minute journey home along Ulleswater Road ridiculously longer when routed via Southgate roundabout. The result will be more pollution and more frustration amongst road users and added pollution from idling cars.
A better idea is to put 20mph speed cameras up so we can all move around in a safer and more considerate manner and the council can subsidise their funding with fines. Another plan could be to issue a ‘Lakes’ Tag System which allows residents vehicles to access their roads via access gates or bollards that move down to allow access. This would be a good compromise to access whilst stopping rat running
I can only summise that the only people to endorse this particular scheme are those who are semi retired and only need to potter around locally .A compromise needs to be found to best improve the life of all the residents.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4899

13 Nov 2019 18:16

Majority of residents in Old Park Road support the scheme - from students, through young families to the fully retired - all of them fed up with the noise, pollution and danger that an average of 2947 vehicles a day rat running down the street bring. Speed cameras would mean the same number of vehicles with some travelling more slowly. The Tag System is a good idea but doubt there is the budget for it.

wesley ashwell posted a reply

#4900

13 Nov 2019 19:28

I do a good deal of walking and cycling, but unlike some I recognise that we live in the age of the car and that the answer is not to persecute car drivers, which is, apparently, the intention of the Council's needlessly drastic ally awful plan.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4901

13 Nov 2019 21:14

No one should be (or feel) persecuted but for too long cars have been prioritised over other forms of transport both in terms of spend and space allocated. People in cars will be able to travel down every road in the area - but it will become a much pleasanter, safer and healthier place for people to walk and cycle. I use all forms of transport but try not to use the car unless I have to. Luckily policy makers have recognised the 'age of car' no longer serves society and are rebalancing how we get around.

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4902

13 Nov 2019 21:26

We may still be living in the age of the car, just, but no one should be in any doubt we are moving away from it and there will be adjustments to make.
At the level of HMG: “Our ambition for England. We want to make cycling and walking the natural choices for shorter journeys, or as part of a longer journey.”
More crucially for what happens directly here in Enfield, the latest London Plan is within a whisker of final approval after several years of consultation process, and includes such gems as:
10.1.1 … an ambitious aim to reduce Londoners’ dependency on cars in favour of increased walking, cycling and public transport use. Without this shift away from car use, which the policies in the Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy seek to deliver, London cannot continue to grow sustainably.
10.1.2 A shift from car use to more space-efficient travel also provides the only long-term solution to the road congestion challenges that threaten London’s status as an efficient, well-functioning globally-competitive city.
10.1.4 Rebalancing the transport system towards walking, cycling and public transport …
10.2.3 The Healthy Streets Approach is an evidence-based approach to improve health and reduce health inequalities, which will help Londoners use cars less, and walk, cycle and use public transport more.

And so forth. There has been literally thousands of pages of such, usually evidenced, material over the last few years across numerous reports, statutory and otherwise.

As I’ve posted countless times, the future direction is well signposted; what we are now going through is the adjustment, and change often brings discomfort.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4903

13 Nov 2019 22:08

In my opinion this proposed scheme doesn't go far enough, but it is certainly good step in the right direction. Residential streets are for people not through traffic, and should be play-space for kids rather rather than short cuts for through traffic.

I'll begin with a cautious eye on Roger Dougall's well-put comments.

The Council is well aware that main local through roads are under considerable pressure, which is why it ran a campaign (which must still be extant) to encourage drivers who make short/shortish, driver-only journeys to do so by public transport, on a 'bike' or by foot. And here it's worth noting that London's Mayor also takes that sort of approach - even the Government wants people to walk, cycle or use public transport when possible. My expectation is that eventually the penny will drop about quality of life, notably in the case of the Lakes Estate, for most people.

I have to confess that I'm one of the old dotards who potters around locally; though I have been able to drive for 60 or more years. I own a car, but I'll polish my halo by saying that we will be disposing of it next year because public transport and delivery services suit our purpose. Being ancient doesn't come into it, and I could hire a car if it was really essential.

Adrian Day's point is worth noting. On his street and others through traffic casts a shadow over lives. Plus in various streets, including mine, the Council has measured speeds above 70mph. Anything which makes that more difficult is worth having.

Roger D. offers some alternative solutions. Personally I prefer the Council's approach because it's simple, and will make some streets a much safer and better space for cohesive, pleasant living. If there is more congestion on Green Lanes perhaps, together with the cycle lanes, it will discourage short, driver only journeys and foster public transport.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4905

14 Nov 2019 10:35

wesley ashwell wrote:

Cars and car drivers are literally the least persecuted road users ever. Grossly over-protected. Cossetted. Continually killing OBR forecasts as every budget a further blackhole in public finances as fuel duties don't inflate as they are supposed to /are budgeted for.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4906

14 Nov 2019 11:17

I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with David Eden about feather-bedded motorists. For untold years roads have been modified to meet the growing demand to drive about. Cars are wonderfully flexible/adaptable, but this has misled society into using them when other alternatives such as trains and walking would, overall, be a better choice. And to pick up on another direction the Council is going, cycling has enormous benefits for local journeys. At 82 I can cycle to Enfield Town or Wood Green and far beyond with positive benefits for my health and everyone else's on the route. Further, with suitable panniers, I can carry quite a lot too. Pop across the Channel to the Netherlands and other countries to the North of that and you'll find babies asleep in devices on the bikes and in towed in trucks behind. London has a lot to learn.

wesley ashwell posted a reply

#4907

14 Nov 2019 14:13

Yes, people will be able to travel down the roads in the area, but they won't be able to exit the blocked ends of most of them, so there will be lots of vehicles doing three point turns in order to get out of them; add in the complication of delivery vans, refuse collection, buses etc. and you have a recipe for chaos on an everyday basis.
A twenty mph speed limit throughout the area and speed bumps in some critical spots would be a simpler
and better solution.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4908

14 Nov 2019 14:19

My suggestions for further modifications.
I do not agree with the current proposition but understand that rat running is an issue especially on Old Park Road.
If we are to keep the current plan then why not have a TAG system or an ANPR system at the end of just a couple of Aldermans Hill Roads that allows ONLY residents living within the closure zone into and/or out of them. For example you could only enter Aldermans Hill via Grovelands Road and then re- enter the Lakes Estate only via Ulleswater Road.This would cut out the long drive via Southgate Circus and reduce frustration and pollution as well as eliminating the rat runs. Residents would not need to clog up already struggling main roads .

I do believe it wouldn't be a massive expense for only 2 bollard barriers on the Aldermans Hill end of the estate,TAGS could be purchased by residents who would like to use the access points much as some areas require the residents to purchase parking permits . Alternatively an ANPR system where residents have to log their cars on a central system( this is already being done in Southgate Leisure centre) could be run by an external company and even generate extra income for the council.

This eliminates rat running and reduces the traffic on the surrounding arterial roads,makes the area more pleasant for residents by reducing traffic whilst mitigating the impact on those of us needing to access Aldermans Hill. Surely this is a good compromise and one that all of us could get behind if we don't believe that more speed bumps and a 20mph camera zone would work.

Roger Blows posted a reply

#4909

14 Nov 2019 16:01

I just love the pundit term “traffic evaporation.” I can only assume that it does what the label on the bottle says. If it works in Walthamstow village, why won’t it work in Fox Lane and the Lake District? And if evaporation works for traffic, maybe it will work for other disagreeable features of urban living - burglary, for example?

Klem Klem posted a reply

#4910

14 Nov 2019 16:12

The drawings are clear with pretty visuals to show us the appearance but they are a farce.

If any road is closed off at one end it will be out of bounds for all commercial vehicles (On-line shopping, refuse carts, delivery of building materials, pantechnicons for house-movers etc) unless adequate provision is made for them to turn round and drive out the way they came in. Whilst special access gates can be provided for emergency services (and don't they look lovely) I doubt Enfield have plans to compulsorily purchase sufficient properties in each road to build the necessary turning spaces for commercial vehicles?

All residents will have to drag their sundry wheely bins back and forth to and from Fox lane/Aldermans hill on the appropriate collection days, and all delivery and collection drivers would have to park up in Fox lane/Aldermans Hill and man-handle their goods (or skips) a few hundred yards down the road.

It is patently obvious that Richard Eason and Cycle Enfield have not consulted with either the Fire Brigade, Refuse or Highways before drawing up and presenting this ridiculous scheme to the public yesterday.

Who in Enfield is responsible for this, and what is it costing the Enfield Tax payers?

Does anyone have info on what happened to the Haringey's similar idea when they closed off Middle lane for a couple of weeks?

David Hughes posted a reply

#4911

14 Nov 2019 18:00

I'm fascinated by the angry and apparently well-thought-through responses by the contributors who are against the scheme. Clearly there are likely to be potential practical problems in any proposed change like this, but I have a great deal of difficulty in imagining that trained, and often very experienced staff, haven't given much thought to the issues before sharing their ideas with the public.

Time will tell, but meanwhile perhaps knowledgeable critics could spend some time thinking about what can be done to relieve traffic stress on families which have to bring up their families against a constant stream of cars passing their homes. The air quality must be dreadful, whilst for my street speed is a big issue - 70mph plus has been measured.

Whatever is done must be in keeping with family life not the needs of traffic

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4913

15 Nov 2019 09:48

Some hilarious doomsday soothsaying on this thread....

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4914

15 Nov 2019 09:50

Worth noting that measures like this are all over LB Hackney, which has Victorian/Edwardian streets as narrow if not narrower than hours, and the entire borough hasn't collapsed into the firey pits of hell....

Geoff Hook posted a reply

#4915

15 Nov 2019 17:49

It feels like we are living in a Nazi state. Who do this regime think they represent. The plant boxes were just a trial. We will probably have hour restrictions Curfew next!?

roger dougall posted a reply

#4916

15 Nov 2019 18:03

Do we know the local Tory councillors stance on this issue. If we vote for them and they replace Labour then would they shelve the scheme.
Could be a real vote winner for local Tories.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4917

15 Nov 2019 23:06

I'm beginning to worry about this thread, some contributors seem unwilling to debate the reasons for the proposal - kids freedoms and well-being, less toxic air quality/cleaner air, creating a pleasanter neighbourhood, the shear weight of though-traffic on some streets making life a misery for residents, against the access needs for residents' cars and deliveries, ambulances and so on.

As for the Geoff Hooks' Nazi state, quite a few people have requested the Council to make a change. Neighbours' cars are one thing, almost everyone has one and that's fine, but drivers forsaking the main roads to their destination and speeding along a purely residential roads spreading their dangerous air quality is another. Clearly it's not a Nazi state that's being created, it's the Council trying its best to meet conflicting requests/needs.

When the trial is complete just tell the Council what you opinion is and why; your opinion will be taken into account just as mine will. My guess is most residents would prefer the status quo, but the shear weight of through traffic has degraded their quality of life, in their opinion and mine, such that an attempt has to be made to improve the situation for the people who live there.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4918

16 Nov 2019 08:28

I have still yet to see a single post either here or on other forums from anybody with a family with children or anybody who has to work praising the virtues of the scheme.
It seems to be just a fractionally small minority of middle aged men who sit around in their houses all day who only need to potter around on a bike trying to impose change on the majority of people who need to work and fulfil family commitments who don't need further obstacles in an already busy life

Helen Masacz posted a reply

#4919

16 Nov 2019 09:55

I'm against this idea of redirecting traffic from the Lakes as the families who live on Fox lane, Oakfield road and Bourne will take the brunt of the pollution. why is that acceptable?- They're streets wont be
Calmer & quieter
Safer neighbourhood
Greener and cleaner environments and air
Improved public realm
Increased physical activity
More connected. It seems it's for the few and not for the many. it smacks of entitled few wanting all the positives and dumping the rest on others.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4922

17 Nov 2019 18:03

I'm one of those middle-aged men - well no, I'm an old-aged man - but I do cycle rather than walk because there is less strain on knees and hips. Yes we do have a car, but I/we rarely use it because walking and cycling are good for you, and London's public transport is mostly excellent (especially compared with most other countries).

What affect the creation of a 'Quieter Neighbourhood ' will have is hard to envisage for the Lakes Estate, but one thing is certain: if the Council's proposals disadvantage residents changes will be made.

There's some very well researched background to all this which found that the 'age of the car' has severely disadvantaged children. And being an old-aged man I've witnessed/been part of it. As a five year old child I walked to school supervised by girls little older than myself (walking is much better for you that being in a car). A little older than that we kids all played out without parental supervision, and sometimes even after dark.

Where Helen M's claim that if the Council's scheme is adopted the streets won't be safer and quieter I don't know. Of course the changes won't create magical, serene neighbourhoods, but they should adjust the balance between the dominance of cars and residential streets as social space. A step in the right direction which can built on as time passes.

Finally I'm a little bewildered by the Helen's feeling that "....it smacks of the entitled few wanting all the positives....". All I'm looking for is residential streetswhich favour people, and particularly kids, against cars driven too fast (above 20mph), and are pleasant enough for adults to form neighbourly friendships. The dominance of cars on residential streets has isolated us in our homes.

Helen Masacz posted a reply

#4925

17 Nov 2019 21:00

Not sure how cars can speed down roads on the Lakes, they have speed bumps along them. In my view set a speed limit of 20- job done. We don't live on a private estate, we live in a busy suburb and the natural flow of traffic trickles along our roads (that's what roads are for) distributing traffic more evenly alleviating heavy congestion in areas. If Bourne Hill, Oakfield road and the Fox lane become even more congested, why is that fair for the families who live on these roads. it's not.

Dru Loizou posted a reply

#4926

18 Nov 2019 00:30

As a resident of Grovelands Road, where speeds of over 70mph have been recorded, I’m willing to give this a go. Something needs to be done about the speed and volume of cars through our neighbourhood. Changing the speed limit to 20mph is pointless if you can’t enforce. And while bumps will help reduce speed, they’re unlikely to decrease the rat runs. Research also shows that pollution increases as cars slow down and speed up between bumps.

I work full time, in case you were wondering, Roger D, and last year bought a bike to use for shorter journeys around the neighbourhood. There are, of course, instances where I need to use the car, but going forward, I’ll just make sure I factor in extra time to get out of the estate. The Council’s proposals aren’t perfect (I’d prefer Grovelands Road to be closed at the Fox Lane end, so Green Lanes is easily avoided), but I’d much rather we trial and refine/improve with feedback and measurement, as opposed to nothing being done at all.

Graham Bennett posted a reply

#4927

18 Nov 2019 09:08

I'm keen to see a scheme of this type trialled, but I want a well run trial that has the best chance of success, otherwise we risk more hostility and polarisation of views. The information provided by the Council can, at best, be described as superficial. I hope they have researched this properly and will share the details with residents. In particular I'd like to know what they have learnt from similar schemes elsewhere:

Has there been a reduction in traffic volumes in the quiet areas; has there been a reduction in speed; has there been a reduction in pollution levels

What has the impact been on the surrounding area for congestion and pollution

What provision has been made for refuse lorries, large delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles. What are Enfield's plans for Fox Lane; will entry for these vehicles be allowed (to avoid them having to reverse out of the area) and if so is it just on a basis of trust?

Has there been an issue with residents finding somewhere to turn in the road; if this is difficult/impossible then the only option is to drive over the pavement where there is a dropped-kerb, which is hardly consistent with keeping the pavements safe

How does the size of existing quiet areas compare with the Enfield's plans - the larger the area the greater the impact on the surrounding area (particularly Southgate Circus) but arguably it will cause a greater reduction in number of car journeys

I'd also expect the Council to show us traffic projections for the area itself and for the surrounding area (difficult to be too accurate here but there should be some attempt to calculate figures to check if it's even worth doing a trial). There should be fewer journeys using a car, but these journeys will generally be much longer both within the area (because of the need to drive the the 'exit' end of the street) and because of the detour around the outside of the area (eg 2.5 miles for me to get to PG station rather than 0.5 miles now). On balance, what does the Council think the net difference will be in miles travelled?

We really need to learn from other's experience before blundering into a trial. And I'd hope that more details of the plans would allow a more informed debate about the proposals. Let's press the Council for these details before they start the trial.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4928

18 Nov 2019 11:28

Helen Masacz wrote:

Because they chose to live on A or B roads? Benefitting from the cheaper house prices which that entails...

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4929

18 Nov 2019 11:30

Helen Masacz wrote:

Lakes roads don't all have speed bumps. Quite a few don't in fact.

Recorded speeds are all public record and have been published a few times on this sit. Think 70mph was hit somewhere. Lots over 50mph. Majority over 30mph.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4930

18 Nov 2019 12:28

Summed up brilliantly by Mr Bennett. Modification of this plan is the only way to avoid polarisation of views. Not sue if David Edens point that people on A and B roads should get even more traffic because they couldn't afford to live on the Lakes Estate is a fair one, sounds a little elitist in some ways!

I'm a bit tired of the citing of excess speed.Using a few outliers of 70mph as an argument is weak, there will always be those who break the law. Somebody was mugged along my road and another house burgled.Does that mean we now close off the roads to people?

Speed cameras would solve the problem.The main issue is the tiny minority those who want to shut all the roads completely without showing compromise.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4931

18 Nov 2019 13:50

roger dougall wrote:

I presume you are deliberately mis-construing my point. It is a statement of fact that traffic on A and B roads is higher than unclassified roads. That is the purpose of them - to funnel traffic. If you choose to live on an A or B road then you accept that you are living on a less quiet road than a cul de sac, for example.

You know what I'm sick of? Road traffic accidents. And people dismissing speeding like hurtling along at 50mph outside a child's house is just ok.

As for compromise, the planters were a compromise. But bad drivers drove into them and idiots and morons vandalised and moved them.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4932

18 Nov 2019 14:14

Not a few 'outliers' Roger. Have a look at the shocking speed and volume stats for the Fox Lane neighbourhood

http://betterstreets.co.uk/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-faqs-facts

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4933

18 Nov 2019 14:16

There's been nearly 20 years of debate, surveys, consultations and so on. Now it's time to stop guessing and see what happens with a trial.

http://betterstreets.co.uk/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-faqs-facts

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4934

18 Nov 2019 14:18

They represent the many who want noisy, polluting, dangerous rat runners off their streets. At last the Council are listening to the people.
http://betterstreets.co.uk/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-faqs-facts/?fbclid=IwAR2fqh9ok6_iq2jI4uJaXv99UccCpwGs2JnV7-vuL7XgnB3Tah0tmp7Y5yo

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4935

18 Nov 2019 14:20

There's many cul-de-sacs in Enfield that work very well - including the estate at the top of the Fox Lane neighbourhood. There will much less chaos than happens now with thousands of rat runners cutting through our residentials streets.

Have a read:

http://betterstreets.co.uk/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-faqs-facts

Dru Loizou posted a reply

#4937

18 Nov 2019 19:58

Firstly, 15% of drivers surpassing the speed limit cannot be accurately described as ‘a few outliers’, Roger.

Secondly, speed cameras are not a viable option. They’re only installed at sites where a pattern of serious or fatal speed-related collisions have been identified.

Thirdly, flippant, inflammatory remarks such as: “the main issue is the tiny minority who want to shut all the roads completely without showing compromise” only seek to increase division and polarisation on the issue.

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4938

19 Nov 2019 08:34

Thanks Adrian, enlightening and a link well worth reading.
Some discussion on this street has raised the potential benefit on crime in making it more difficult - such as car and opportunist drive-past related theft .
I’d hope that a more pleasant walking environment might encourage more locals to get out and go spend time on the PG high street – get their haircut then have a coffee sort of thing. There’s nowhere better supplied.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4939

19 Nov 2019 23:20

Probably not everyone who has contributed to this conversation will remember the idea of a 'Mini-Holland ' for the north/south road though Palmers Green to Enfield Town, with QN's (Quieter Neighbourhoods) on either side of that road. Which, as I remember it, mirrored recent changes in Germany. What we are experiencing now is the development of that idea.

And how pleased I am to see it happening.

What bothers me is that drivers seem not to have grasped the idea that once in a QN they are in a place for living, nor have they realised that priority really ought to pass from car to people, perhaps especially children . In streets like this adults should be chatting in the streets, and, wait for it, children should playing out there, much as I did as a youngster. I am very old and times have changed amazingly.

The freedoms of kids have suffered most from the car-age. It really is time to redress the balance.

Candy Newman posted a reply

#4940

19 Nov 2019 23:22

Please everyone have a look at how the new proposal effects Oakfield Road at the top of Fox Lane. Oakfield Road will be the only road in and out of the newly proposed cul-de-sac which comprises the whole Meadway Estate as well as other roads near us. This is a cul-de-sac of many roads, with many houses and flats.
Every car, delivery van, lorry, taxi, every vehicle big or small will now have to come in or go out of our road to access all these homes. Under these proposals our road, currently a fairly quiet, pleasant road, with a great community and with many young families will inevitably become a noisy, congested thoroughfare. It will become the service road for the whole area.

I am hoping this is just an oversight for those people who, lower down Fox Lane, want to stop rat running in their streets and have proposed this solution. I am all in favour of less cars, less petrol fumes, less congestion but our street should not be getting noisy, polluted and highly congested as a way of solving the neighbourhood's problems.

Candy Newman 77 Oakfield Road N14

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4941

20 Nov 2019 08:20

A very fair point, Candy. Hopefully some variant of the suggested plan can be developed. Better Streets for Enfield has proposed an alternative (see below) that keeps the integrity of the LTN |(ie no through routes for rat-runners) but allows more entry/exit options to relieve the pressure on your road.

http://betterstreets.co.uk/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-faqs-facts

Chelsea Dawson posted a reply

#4942

20 Nov 2019 10:06

The end to rat-running and speeding is the nice side effect. The main drive of this scheme is to remove private cars from the picture. We cannot continue to use private cars as freely as we do now and the only way to do this is to make their use as inconvenient and impractical as possible. Cars are but a part of the picture.

We have to bite the bullet and make proper efforts to address climate change and reduce our individual and thus communal carbon footprint. This will include huge and in many instances uncomfortable changes to the way we run and live our lives.

More use of public transport, more use of bicycles and our own steampower, more frequent food shopping rather than shopping weekly (this country throws more than 10 million tonnes of food away annually, which will be addressed a little if we buy the food our family needs on a more frequent basis rather than bulk buying), getting online shopping delivered to a central hub rather than our homes, reducing or removing meat from our diets, stopping buying bottled water, replacing heating systems and boilers, wearing more clothes in the winter and turning the heating down, washing clothes at a lower temperature, electing to take short showers and not baths, switching off lights and appliances when not in use, vastly reducing air travel, installing solar panels on houses and ensuring our homes are insulated properly – the list is long and painful. Those lucky enough to be around in 20 years will not recognise London – the roads will not be full of cars, either on the road or parked in front of houses. Off-street parking will be returned to gardens allowing the rain a place to go rather than sheeting off our drives and into the drains. Our children and their children might also have half a chance.

Dan Skipworth-Michell posted a reply

#4943

20 Nov 2019 13:00

In general I support the idea although there will be considerable local opposition as it adds to one’s car journey time. My concern is the feasibility of the scheme. I can’t see how the displacement of 16,445 vehicle movements (Basil Clarke) can be absorbed by the three through-routes proposed. As for road capacity to carry this displaced traffic the betterstreets.co.uk paragraph is vague “saw some increases”, and, “Main roads are usually better suited to absorb traffic than residential neighbourhoods, with wider carriageways…”. Having just narrowed Green Lanes (highly controversial in its own right) LBE will, at a stroke, gridlock this ‘main road’. This may have the beneficial effect of ‘car journey pain’ but buses will be stranded like ‘dinosaurs in a tar pit’ while LBE waits for the magical “traffic evaporation”. I am pretty sure all you have witnessed and heard of dangerous overtaking of buses since the cycle lane came into being.

For this scheme to work another unpopular measure needs to be considered? That is, the removal of all on-street parking on the through routes. Equally unpopular but in tune with the anti-car sentiment an additional car-per-household levy? In other words, a residential parking scheme within a large CPZ. Combined with this could be a Council funded drop-kerb scheme for all through-route properties so that residential parking is moved to the residents’ demise.

For my part I welcome any measure that stops boy-racers ripping up the speed limit. I have witnessed two accidents (Old Park road/Fox Lane) where speed was the cause, and countless occasions of performance cars exercising their capabilities. En passant, and as a cyclist, I am irked by ‘professional’ cyclists who insist on ignoring the cycle lane and ride on the road as well as those who ride without lights in the dark. For the cycle lane to work effectively it really has to be policed/enforced.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4944

20 Nov 2019 17:08

With reference to Candy Newmans point I'm pleased to see some kind of modification to ease the potential congestion on her road.. Good to see the council are working with everyone.Thanks to Adrian for so promptly posting the modification.

The only potential problem maybe the opening of a new rat run as static traffic on Bourne Hill will be encouraged to cut around the traffic and travel down Oakfield road in attempt to 'push back in' along Bourne Avenue.The estate could be flooded with traffic attempting this short cut.

Nevertheless this is good progress to see alterations being made. If someone can solve the issue of somehow being able to access Aldermans Hill then we may have a workable plan forming .

Matthew Stevens posted a reply

#4945

20 Nov 2019 21:29

Hi. We live on caversham avenue. I just wanted to put another option in to the mix. Perhaps the council could operate temporary road closeures during peak hours operated by cameras and fine any un-authorised entry using anpr and PCN notices. This way the roads can be free for residents and stop them being used as a through route. Plus an extra revenue for the council. See attached

roger dougall posted a reply

#4946

20 Nov 2019 21:55

Brilliant suggestion by Matthew,I've suggested similar things in previous posts as a compromise. I would still prefer all roads stay open but I could run with this idea.Afterall they enforce bus lanes using this method and we could all access Aldermans Hill at some point.
Any reason this wouldn't work?

Kyriacos Vassiliou posted a reply

#4947

20 Nov 2019 22:13

I live in Bourne Hill and I am shocked that the authority or campaigner of the project did not have the courtesy to let us know about these proposals.
I found out about this scheme from my son who lives in Cranley Gardens.
These are draconian proposals so extreme that it will have detrimental impact around Fox Lane area.
This proposal for the Fox Lane area will only benefit some residents but bring more congestion and pollution to others. The scheme will create more problems outside the Fox Lane neighbourhood with cars having to travel further to get to their destination.
Some roads will be heavily congested including Bourne Hill, Aldermans Hill and Green Lanes.
A more suitable solution would be to introduce speed bumps and 20mph zones
Making some roads one way could also help, ie Cranley and Burford Gardens

John Phillips posted a reply

#4949

21 Nov 2019 09:01

Sorry Kyriacos,
Speed bumps don't help, they only penalize small cars. 4x4s cope with them more easily. See The Mall.
20 mph zones don't work. It's already 30mph and that is widely ignored.
One way streets speed up the traffic and that's the last thing we want.
We will not know if traffic 'evaporation' reduces the traffic on the surrounding routes until it's tried, but it has in other areas of London.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4950

21 Nov 2019 09:18

Similar schemes elsewhere have shown that people within the area increase the number of journeys taken by foot and bike - and that over all the amount of vehicular traffic falls. If we are to address the major challenges of climate change, obesity, illness from pollution and 27,000 deaths/injuries from road accidents a year we need to start doing things differently. This LTN is just the start of measures that have to be taken to reduce dependence on the car - expect many more LTNs in Enfield and other measures to encourage sustainable travel. Who would have thought that, Bank, one of the busiest junctions in the centre of London would be closed to vehicles one day?

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4952

21 Nov 2019 09:35

Kyriacos Vassiliou wrote:

Speed humps don't do anything about rat running and just encourage speed and braking between humps. They are also little consequence to big SUVs.

20mph zones are unenforceable. Enfield Police are on record that speeding not a priority and they won't apply resources to tackling it.

As noted, you can't get speed cameras without a demonstrated track record of speed related KSIs (i.e. deaths/serious injuries).

Chelsea Dawson posted a reply

#4953

21 Nov 2019 10:49

20mph zones are unenforceable. Enfield Police are on record that speeding not a priority and they won't apply resources to tackling it.

Do you mean there is no will to enforce these zones, rather than that they are unenforceable? There is a difference and it is my understanding that 20MPH zones are certainly enforceable.

In addition, exceeding a speed limit by more than 20mph in a 20mph or 30mph zone will result in a Band C fine – 6 penalty points and a fine of 125-175% of your weekly income. You can also be disqualified for between 7-56 days.

Michael Hobbs posted a reply

#4954

21 Nov 2019 15:14

A few other readers have picked up on the probable unintended consequences of this scheme.

Traffic is not reduced. It simply gets displaced.

Overall carbon emissions rise in the area as people drive further.

I also think that the council needs some help with this. This is the same council that spent >£30m on cycle lanes that are intersected by bus stops.

Chelsea Dawson posted a reply

#4955

21 Nov 2019 16:22

Traffic is not reduced. It simply gets displaced.

I would have to defer to Adrian Day and David Eden who understand the phenomenon much better than I, but the displaced traffic evaporates. I can’t recall exactly which similar scheme I read about unfortunately - although I believe it was also in London - but the extra traffic disappears. Presumably the scheme prompts others to take different means of transport?

roger dougall posted a reply

#4956

21 Nov 2019 17:10

How about this as a solution.
ANPR at the end of a couple of roads onto Aldermans Hill. Each address on the lakes estate can register 2 cars to use the exit/entrances, you can buy more if you want to.

This can be easily done.

Problem still seems to be those favoring closures not running with any compromise and a council just wanting to implement a cheap scheme to the detriment of a majority of the residents here and in surrounding areas.I think the Labour council might regret this when the local elections come around again .

John Phillips posted a reply

#4957

21 Nov 2019 17:52

We have lived in Lakeside Road for 29 years. The first 20 years were OK but the road is now blighted by rat-runners causing noise, fumes and danger. And it’s getting steadily worse.

We are delighted that the roads will be blocked off. Slight detours are a small price to pay to be able to sleep in our front bedroom and open our windows again.

However the Council’s scheme is flawed and we fear it will ultimately fail as being unacceptable to too many drivers.

A much more light touch scheme, such as that proposed by Better Streets for Enfield, still prevents through traffic but is far less restrictive on the people who actually live here. It seems much more popular with our neighbours. Local drivers must be won over if the plan is to be an ultimate success.

Better Street’s plan can be seen here: https://maphub.net/oflimap/fox-lane-area-modal-filters

Broomfield Ave and Seafield Road were both blocked against rat-runners years ago and don't seem to have problems with emergency services, waste lorries, 3 point turns etc. And I don't think any residents there would want to go back to the old days.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4958

21 Nov 2019 18:43

I would like John to be able to enjoy living on his road again.

His very valid point is that drivers need to be on side.The newer plan on better streets just reverses the direction of congestion as everyone on the Aldermans Hill side must route via southgate circus to Winchmore etc. as Fox Lane is blocked.It is no better. It creates the monster of all rat runs as to avoid Bourne Hill queues you go down Caversham ,up fox lane ,along oakfield road to join Bourne Ave .Fox lane would be like a motorway and everyone will be speeding out of frustration like they did when the boxes were in force.

Access points for residents only onto and from Aldermans Hill, if only via a couple of roads as a'bolt 'on' to the original plan would help to win me over and I'm one of those drivers who is vehemently opposed to this current scheme as it stands.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4960

21 Nov 2019 22:13

This proposal has certainly caused a stir. But then any attempt to curtail or mitigate the dominance of cars always does regardless of the fact that they can cause problems as well as well as being very adaptable and useful in many contexts. In fact that very adaptability can be part of the problem: people fall in love with their car, and expect to use them even in contexts where other solutions, like walking, cycling, using public transport would be the better choice.

Which may be why there is so much angst about the Council’s current proposals for the Lakes Estate: perhaps people are wondering whether the next step will mean a greater chance of having to take one of those choices. Personally I think that a shift in policy is inevitable sooner or later as air quality becomes a bigger issue, and international concern about the progress of climate change takes hold.

And make no mistake, that will happen.

This thread like most others connected mainly with car traffic, and especially where there is to be any limitations on car use, has dwelt on what drivers want. However, there is a category of person which has lost most in the car-age: children. They have been swept off streets like those in the Fox Lane area like leaves on a tree. When I was young all those 70/75 years ago children in my residential street played on the street most days, sometimes after dark on autumn evenings. We had freedoms children now could only dream about. And this matters; more than one scientist has spent much of their working life thinking about it, 20mph or lower is important for that reason alone.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#4961

21 Nov 2019 23:04

Great post, David

Candy Newman posted a reply

#4962

21 Nov 2019 23:10

Living on Oakfield Road I do not want to be the unintended consequence of a scheme that sends all vehicles into and out of the Meadway Estate through my road. Cars, lorries, delivery vans, scaffolders and skips would pass through Oakfield Road onto anywhere on the Meadway Estate. It does not take a trial to see this would happen. It does not need evidence, just a look at the map.
Surely it is not progressive to turn a pleasant, relatively quiet street with many young families into a congested, polluted thoroughfare.
Candy Newman 77 Oakfield Road N14

Mary Jonnes posted a reply

#4963

22 Nov 2019 00:27

David, sadly I think it is unlikely we can return to the utopia of your childhood days. Whilst I welcome the introduction of ‘play streets’, I cannot see many parents allowing their children to play after dark or even during the day for that matter. It is not just a question of car usage and pollution but there is also the issue of crime. I know many local parents have taken to picking up their secondary school children from Southgate station because of the recent spate of muggings specifically targeting teenagers. I was delighted when my teenage son decided to walk home along Bourne Hill during the summer months but after a few muggings along that route I had to stop him. I am one of the few parents in his circle that allows him to take the W9 home from Southgate station. The rest are collected by car.

I spoke to 2 planners at the meeting to discuss the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood scheme and they had no clue about the crimespot that Southgate has become. They both agreed that these issues should have been considered when planning the scheme as these issues affect the decisions people make about car usage.

My point is that making our local streets safe for children is not just about traffic and pollution, although clearly these are important factors. Furthermore, there are many reasons why people will continue to need their cars and parents will always prioritise their child’s safety over car usage.

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4965

22 Nov 2019 09:05

No surprise that there are roughly as many suggestions as there are posts since this is a complex problem and everyone has some personal experience. That however tends not to be of the whole area, nor includes modelled anticipated impacts of the non-area roads. Feeding all ideas to the Council is therefore a sensible channel.
Reading through I was drawn to points made by Candy Newman in two separate posts: the first referred to Oakfield as “our street”, and that seems powerful because, while it is a public thoroughfare and so “everyone’s”, the perceived extension of your home into your immediate street is real.
She also talks of Oakwood of being “a fairly quiet, pleasant road, with a great community and with many young families”. (In the last but one set of traffic data, Oakfield had (relatively) the second lowest volume of traffic and the second lowest velocity in the area.) It’s exactly that type of health and community enhancing environment which residents of eg Meadway, Amberely / Mall, Old Park Road / Caversham, amongst others of our area's streets, have sought for many years.
My own street petitioned with an accompanying impact report some years since to be a local LTN. It had the support of 96% of households, including a GP surgery and two care homes. The council highlighted downside impacts to other streets and hence the need to look at an area wide solution. We accepted the argument and some five years or so later here we finally are.
I would like to think that residents of all streets, busy and otherwise, can see all sides and when a revised scheme comes forward will follow this streets approach and not seek to raise their own drawbridge to the detriment of many others, instead seek a wider solution we can all benefit from - the first of many in Enfield.

Stephen Lloyd-Jones posted a reply

#4966

22 Nov 2019 12:26

Google maps and especially Waze are primary facilitators of the growth in back street rat running in London.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/map-apps-like-waze-turning-quiet-london-streets-into-polluted-rat-runs-a3507646.html

I have no idea on how/whether their activities can be controlled. Many drivers are now totally reliant on satnav and these apps to get around and shaving 2 minutes off a journey by ducking through side streets looks appealing to many.

I live in the presumed Connaught Gardens low traffic area, so watching with interest.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4967

22 Nov 2019 13:55

Chelsea Dawson wrote:

Hi Chelsea, yes I mean no will. Hence why drivers are happy doubling the current 30mph speed limit..... 20mph does nothing versus those already happy to drive 30mph (the numbers of which are vast).

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4968

22 Nov 2019 13:57

Michael Hobbs wrote:

The Council DID NOT spend £30m on cycle lanes.

Christ. How is that debate still going on....??

roger dougall posted a reply

#4969

22 Nov 2019 16:57

Regardless of the cost this is the council that ignored overwhelming opposition to the cycle lanes claiming that there would be an influx of cyclists to the area which would boost business and cut congestion on the roads.

We all know that the lanes are never used and no new businesses have opened or existing ones seen a massive revenue boost.If so I'd like to see the figures supporting its success . A messed up Green Lanes probably contributes to the rat running.

The council are now doing the same again with magical claims such as' traffic evaporation'.This current project is rejected by the vast majority since they know this new scheme will be a disaster again. It's being implemented,in part, to try and mitigate the massive 'cock up' they created on Green Lanes.

I wonder how long it will be until other residents in the pending closure zones realise that it might be best to vote out these local Labour councillors before their areas are sealed off . Not long I bet!. Local elections are going to be very interesting indeed.

Hal Haines posted a reply

#4970

23 Nov 2019 09:39

Somebody else asked if we are still talking about the cycle lanes - it appears we still are. The QN plans pre-date the cycle lanes. As Karl will tell you this has been going on for years. However it does make sense that QNs should be put in in conjunction with cycling lanes and this was the proposal before Daniel Anderson replaced Chris Bond. From my experience most of the increase in traffic has been N-S rather than E-W so I don’t think the lanes have made a difference. Ps if you don’t see that more people aren’t using the lanes then I suggest you are in denial of aren’t looking - not only the numbers (backed up by the counter) but the sheer increase in diversity is amazing to see - young women, families, working men, BAME etc.

You make an interesting point about democracy as the cycle lanes were full installed before the last locals 2018. Labour won an increased majority. The Conservatives were hoping for gains in Winchmore Hill but it didn’t happen.

Could I ask that everyone here considers the whole community within the Fox Lane area. If you live in a quiet road please consider your nearby neighbours who have to cope with near main road levels of traffic on narrow residential roads? The surrounding areas should be re-assured by the experiences of Waltham Forest where, after an initial rise in traffic, it did come back down and sometimes to lower than it was before.

Finally this has become a long 11 page thread but did I just read that someone drives from Cranley Gdns to Aldermans Pharmacy. I am assuming that person wasn’t able to walk but does anyone else think that this is a normal distance for an able bodied person to drive rather than walk? Just getting in the car for every journey, regardless of the distance, can’t be right.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4971

23 Nov 2019 11:02

Hal has a valid point.I I think that the whole neighborhood should be considered,even resident drivers.

That is why I have made suggestions to allow only residents to drive onto and exit Aldermans Hill,even just a couple of roads flowing one way would do it. Until there is some compromise in that regard then just shutting off all exit points seems massively inconsiderate.

Just two one way roads to limit cost, enforced by ANPR onto Aldermans Hill with residents only vehicle access solves everyones problems.
It's easily enforcable by an external company with each address allowed to register a couple of vehicles.
Can somebody suggest why this idea is flawed.I think it's a great compromise.

P.S Green Lanes was a real waste of money.There maybe a few extra bikes but not enough to justify the disruption and cost .Green Lanes has always been diverse,not sure how that can be quantified

Chelsea Dawson posted a reply

#4972

23 Nov 2019 17:00

In looking further at traffic evaporation I found some Freedom of Information data which actually has some real data and seems to back up the phenomenon. Before Hammersmith Bridge was closed to cars, 25,000 of them crossed it every day. Since it was closed, the total increase in traffic over Kew, Chiswick, Putney, Wandsworth and Battersea bridges is 15,500. So it appears that around 9,500 car journeys a day have "evaporated".

Estimated average daily (24 hour) traffic flow changes since the bridge closure based on automatic (motorised) traffic counters show only the following rises in nearby traffic routes.
Key Bridge – additional 2,000 cars over the prior daily average
Great West Road – additional 1,000 cars over the prior daily average
Chiswick Bridge – additional 6,500 cars over the prior daily average
Mortlake Road – additional 1,500 cars over the prior daily average
Chalkers Corner – additional 8,000 cars over the prior daily average
Battersea Bridge – additional 1,000 cars over the prior daily average
Fulham Palace Road – additional 3,000 cars over the prior daily average
Putney Bridge – additional 4,000 cars over the prior daily average
Upper Richmond Road – additional 1,600 cars over the prior daily average
Wandsworth Bridge – additional 2,000 cars over the prior daily average
Roehampton Lane – 5,000 LESS cars over the prior daily average

There was an increase in miles driven per journey but these were relatively minimal (ranging from no difference to 12.7 miles) and would be expected as drivers try to find a way around the closed area.
The bridge closure has led to more vehicles through the Chalkers Corner intersection, and delay to vehicles has increased but TfL is changing traffic signal timings to balance these new traffic conditions and manage the delay and so this will probably solve the problem.

What is a little disturbing to me (as I mainly use the bus) is that bus journey times have risen a bit. Average changes in weekday bus journey times (in minutes per km), between 07:00 and 19:00, since the bridge closure based on iBus data and depending on route of course, between a few seconds and 21 minutes. It may be worth pushing the council into installing some dedicated bus lanes. They did that with cycle lane and many more people use buses than cycle.

The FoI data can be found here for those interested:
https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019-08-22-0850-FOI%201103%201920.pdf

David Hughes posted a reply

#4973

23 Nov 2019 17:41

In one sense it might be said that every issue on this thread has been covered until the Council comes forward with a revised plan for the Lakes Estate, but I think that a few points need further explanation/elaboration. For example cars are wonderfully adaptable and useful, but that adaptability has led people to use them when there are better alternatives.

And that is the sort of point the Council would have had in their minds when it went for cycle lanes. Firstly 'bikes' don't require consumption of finite resources nor do they create harmful emissions, and secondly government at every level is worrying about the alarming lack of exercise of most our culture - cycling is often strenuous without putting damaging strain on the body.

Then there's the question of space, cars are big and fast and therefore especially greedy of space, and furthermore they are often driver-only; one person needing so much space. That was, and still is, a key point.

The claim that the cycle lanes are not much used is often raised and is particularly irritating. I'm 82 years old, and grew up in a small town with a substantial factory. The vast majority of the workforce cycled to work, but then came affluence and over a very short period workers began to arrive by car.........and of course used their car for pleasure and holidays. Put bluntly cycling culture almost died, and my guess is that this happened across the land. Now government, national and local, has to build it back and it will take time. And remember that need to encourage exercise in an under-exercised society.

Roger Dougall in particular sees the cycle lanes as a waste of money. He is entitled to his view, but he should remember that the Government provided most of the money, that the mayor of London distributed the Government money to three councils and that various medical organisations were/are pressing for more exercise.

Cars are wonderfully adaptable, which must be one of the reasons why they are so popular, but they have their downsides: killers in some circumstances, emitting dangerous emissions from engines - until electric cars take over - and tyres, greedy for space. Much of which is reflected in the difficulty of designing the Lakes Estate Quieter Neighbourhood. I wish the Council well in finding good solutions.

PGC Webmaster posted a reply

#4974

25 Nov 2019 01:38

A short film about the work of Donald Appleyard, who researched the social differences between streets with heavy traffic and those with light traffic.

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4975

25 Nov 2019 12:01

That's a powerful video message.
In a previous post i mentioned a petition and accompanying report developed by my own street. Thta was in 2011 and included not dissimilar research, this time from Chicago. (The URL reference is at the end although no longer seems to be active.)

Fortunately, and finally, we seem to be moving right into the sort of corrective actions both sets of data sugget as being imperative. Looking back, the suggestions we made, outrageous at the time, now appear tame.

If we draw on research from Chicago USA:
• In round numbers traffic volumes of less than 1,000 vehicles per day on residential streets are tolerated and cause few complaints;
• As volume rises to between 1,000 and 2,000 vehicles per day, complaints become more common;
• Volumes above 2,000 vehicles per day are not well tolerated and are likely to spur the community to seek remedies; while
• As traffic volumes increase, some streets are pushed beyond this tolerance threshold and as a result the neighbourhood looks for traffic controls to deal with the problem.
_______
We would additionally urge the Council to consider developing a more general Policy based on the broad figures used from Chicago highlighted in section 2 whereby:
• Residential streets seeing between 1000 and 2000 through trips per day are included on a data base and marked for on-going monitoring
• Residential streets seeing between 2000 and 3000 through trips per day are deemed as being unsatisfactory and subject to a stated desire to actually improve the situation
• Residential streets seeing above 3000 through trips per day are stated to be in need of priority improvement, subject to an annual submission to an appropriate Scrutiny Panel and their residents regularly notified of the Councils on-going acknowledgement of the unsatisfactory local circumstance and progress to alleviate.
Such a proactive stance seems appropriate with all related metrics, such as vehicle numbers, pollution, global warming, the health benefits of more walking and such all coming under increasing national scrutiny, and other than actual traffic casualties and some GLA large vehicle emission zone activity, tending to be moving in an adverse direction.
http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/AHA97F18.pdf

Karl Brown posted a reply

#4976

25 Nov 2019 12:06

Yesterday I heard of a landlord complaining about the proposed Fox Lane LTN because it would mean a big detour for his Caversham Avenue tenants driving their kids to Broomfield Park.
Caversham to the park is 5 minutes on foot. Who drives kids that far?
Even if a medical condition necessitated driving, the detour would involve an extra 100-150m on Fox Lane and the same on Aldermans Hill. That’s 300m top whack, in a car.
I’m worrying that common sense has been totally ditched in a race to be angry with this proposal.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4977

27 Nov 2019 16:59

Karl B's latest contribution to this post reminds me of a circumstance in my late teenage; I may have told the story on this site before, and if so I apologise . On the other hand it is relevant to this thread.

I had a friend who lived in a house with a longish gravel drive to the road where there was a post box near the entrance gate. He and other family members parked their car by the front door, and if they had a letter to post they would drive to the entrance, reversing back to the front door afterwards. And in my time I've been a neighbour to people who never left the house without getting into their car - Karl's story doesn't surprise me at all.

These are hard habits to break; there will be people who resent walking because they never do it. It's no wonder people are resenting change.

David Berkovitch posted a reply

#4981

29 Nov 2019 15:56

David, Its not arbitrary resistance to change. Please don't misunderstand that the considerable resistnace to the scheme is due to laziness or arrogance per your examples. The majority of people resisting the proposals are mainly doing so because they have to drive in their daily lives for a range of reasons (both parents work and schools far away, elderly, disabled, poor bus services etc). For those of us who have to drive on a daily basis, the proposals risk making us a bigger part of the environmental problem than we already are by forcing much longer journeys in already congested streets. As environmentalists with young asthmatic children this is heartbreaking. Even my 6 year old has pointed out that our longer journeys to school will be bad for the environment. And, no, cycling with them both attached to my bicycle on a round trip of 6 miles when both parents work is not an option. And yes, they are too young for the buses by themselves. Please show some respect and understanding for the MANY who are troubled by the proposals.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4982

29 Nov 2019 17:11

A point well put by David Berkovitch. A vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis.
Still yet to see a post by anybody who works or has a young family who is pro this scheme.

Alex Lyness posted a reply

#4983

29 Nov 2019 21:12

Roger - My wife and I fit both of those groups (we have a young child and both work full time in central London) and we are strongly in favour of reducing levels of traffic and pollution in our streets - so we do exist.

The level, speed and size of traffic passing by our front windows are too high for a residential street in my opinion. This is is despite the presence of speed humps on our road which mostly mean people slowing down and then accelerating aggressively. It’s why I can’t see how the alternative suggestions of speed humps and cameras I’ve seen across the various forums will solve the problem.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4984

29 Nov 2019 21:54

Let's remember this thread is about a Quieter Neighbourhood; namely making life better on the streets where we live. Which in turn means excluding cars/drivers who are not driving to a destiny within the neighbourhood. Sure vehicles, including heavy lorries, need to enter, but the primary need is to reduce unnecessary vehicle movements creating better lives, especially for children, who have suffered most from the car-age.

Kids, of an age to be decided by parents, should be at play in a streets like these.

PGC Webmaster posted a reply

#4985

29 Nov 2019 23:38

roger dougall wrote:

A vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis.

Still yet to see a post by anybody who works or has a young family who is pro this scheme.

A couple of assumptions here that don't survive closer scrutiny.

Alex Lyness has already answered Roger's second point , and I'm sure that he's not the only person who works or has a young family who favours this scheme or something similar.

Turning to the claim that "a vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis", this is simply untrue. Quite a few people do, of course, but I imagine that the majority of people living in the affected area don't.

People who work. Anyone working in central London would almost certainly use public transport to get to work, and for that large category of people there is no "need" to drive to get to Southgate or Palmers Green stations from anywhere in the neighbourhood. If you can't walk, there are buses within ten minutes' walk of everywhere in the area. Or you can get on a bike. I'd be very surprised if anyone living less than ten minutes on foot from one of those stations would drive there, and that accounts for a lot of the houses in the area.

People with young families. Again, some will need to drive, but many won't. Again, there are buses within easy reach and services round here are very good.

It's an easy assumption to make that most families having cars has made their lives easier and saved them time. But the ironic thing about over reliance on private cars, is that, instead of freeing up people's time, they have in many cases led to people spending much longer travelling and stuck in congested traffic. There was a time when town centres would have had shops covering all your everyday needs within walking distance. Out of town shopping centres, brought about by the spread of cars, put paid to that.

Because of road danger from heavy traffic, parents now spend large amounts of time ferrying kids around. Back in the day the kids would have travelled on their own, on foot, on a bike, on the bus, and parents would have had more time for other things.

And of course there are huge physical and mental health benefits from active modes of travel (walking, cycling, public transport), which have been repeatedly confirmed by researchers.

roger dougall posted a reply

#4986

30 Nov 2019 14:40

If speed humps don't work then why were a load installed on Fox Lane only 9 months ago?

Alex Lyness posted a reply

#4987

30 Nov 2019 15:09

I said they don’t work in my experience. The council may have evidence to the contrary - maybe worth asking them?

My personal experience of speed humps on our road is they are great in theory but the majority of people just see them as an obstacle slowing down their journey down our road which drives the hard braking and accelerating I see outside our front window on a daily basis.

Ann Jones posted a reply

#4988

30 Nov 2019 20:29

I just wanted to say that you might be forgiven for thinking that there is not so much active opposition to the proposed original plan and the revised plan that appears on this forum because of the low volume of people voicing their concerns on this forum. That is because the people with children or elderly parents and also working parents don’t have as much time to engage on this forum to share the reality of our time poor lives such as
1. Muggings forcing us to pick up our children
2. Needing to get to and from work, visit elderly relatives or shop in between homework and cooking dinner and going to whatever sports training or activities our children take part in.
3. Traffic will evaporate — I find that Bourne Hilll, the High street and Cannon Hill (Presumably others too) are massively congested at present. And google maps, Waze etc will ensure that if volume drops, commuters will quickly fill the void.
4. Three w9 buses an hour, when they come, is not an adequate alternative
5. people who find walking or cycling difficult or impossible are ignored by the scheme . I feel for the poor person who wrote about having to drive to Aldermans Hill pharmacy. A few people on here seem to think their reality is not worthy of consideration.
6. The more expensive alternative involving cameras and ANPR appears not to be given due consideration in Enfield Council’s plans.
7. We have every reason to distrust Enfield Council given their failure to listen to opposition on cycle lanes and bin collections and the failed planters initiative.

Many people opposed to these plans are active elsewhere. I would be grateful if my post was allowed to be considered as simply my point of view and left on the forum for other like minded people to read.

Thank you.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4989

30 Nov 2019 22:52

You'd think that drivers would see traffic control features like 'speed humps' as a reminder/reason to drive at not more than the displayed speed, but evidence seems to suggest that they see them as an annoying impediment. Instead most vehicles seem to accelerate the moment the rear wheels hit the ordinary road surface after the hump. I interpret that to mean that they either believe their own thoughts about streets, if they have any, to be the legitimate ones, or they don't think at all. Which is just another way of saying what Alex Lyness said in the previous contribution to this thread.

That being the case it's probable that the only answer is to stop or photograph the culprits which would be an expensive business.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4992

02 Dec 2019 13:42

roger dougall wrote:

A point well put by David Berkovitch. A vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis.
Still yet to see a post by anybody who works or has a young family who is pro this scheme.

50 hour a week full time worker in Central London here with a young family (wife + 1 child). I'm in favour. I've also loved using the cycle lanes as the most enjoyable part of my 10 mile (each way) commute.

Darren Edgar posted a reply

#4993

02 Dec 2019 13:53

Ann Jones wrote:

5. people who find walking or cycling difficult or impossible are ignored by the scheme . I feel for the poor person who wrote about having to drive to Aldermans Hill pharmacy. A few people on here seem to think their reality is not worthy of consideration.

7. We have every reason to distrust Enfield Council given their failure to listen to opposition on cycle lanes and bin collections and the failed planters initiative.

5. Out of interest, why do you "feel for" this person when there is no evidence that it is anything but abject laziness simply shirking a 10 minute walk? Given the traffic surveys presented highlighted that the primary concern, from the govt's point of view, is the large proportion of car journeys for walkable distances.

His reasoning may be disability, but it seems you've assumed what fits your rhetoric.

7. Cycle lanes were fully consulted upon, were they not? And that "vast opposition" mainly came from spurious surveys by failed MP David Burrowes. A Councillor that specifically ran on an anti-cycle lane mandate lost completely too. Which suggests the opposition, whilst visceral, isn't are widespread as some like to suggest. Bit like how the SOGL lot lost their Court case and got costs against them....

David Hughes posted a reply

#4994

02 Dec 2019 22:25

I am the son of a father who was involved in car design, and who came home with a car within two years of the 39/45 war. Previous only one person in the street was able to run car because he needed it for his business which the authorities thought essential to the war effort. Naturally my father's car caused a stir, and all my playmates clamoured for a ride............but not me. I didn't understand what the fuss was about, and I still don't.

Nevertheless my adult mind recognises that cars are wonderfully useful and adaptable, but the issue now is that people use them when other means of transport (walking, cycling, public transport) are the better solution. Why, for example, do people drive into the heart of London when walking, cycling and public transport are better solutions? Which is the sort of issue David Eden was raising about a 10 minute walk.

You might say why worry about it if people want to spend their money on the fuel and maintenance of a car? To which I say: "What about poor air quality, the use of resources unnecessarily, the lack of exercise, and the fact that on a residential estate like ours, the freedom of 'kids' to play in the streets, as I did as a child, has been lost?"

Children have been the biggest losers in the 'Car Age', though all of us have been denied clean air.

Mary Jonnes posted a reply

#4995

04 Dec 2019 21:11

I am one of those parents who needs to ferry their children around because teenagers are being targeted and mugged at Southgate station on a daily basis. This was a non-essential car journey that has now become essential in order to ensure my child’s safety. There are many factors to be considered before imposing a scheme like this onto local residents. It is not simply black and white. I would love my son to walk home from Southgate station and in fact he did this throughout the summer until we discovered that the muggings had spilled onto Bourne Hill and so I have reluctantly stopped him.

David Hughes posted a reply

#4996

04 Dec 2019 22:42

Mary Jonnes story about her teenagers being targeted at Southgate station/Bourne Hill is a distressing one, and in her situation I'd also find a way of collecting them. But the underlying issue is about the well-being/quality of life of the many hundreds of people who live on the Lakes Estate of which I am one. Of course we all have our personal preferences and views about quality of life, and in the end the decision about the design will hope to achieve a better life for people of all ages. Cleaner air is certainly a big issue in the health and well-being of all of us. Cars powered by electricity from batteries will eventually help with that, but particles from tyres are likely to remain a problem.

If I was making the decision about the precise design I'd probably choose the Council's first stab at it, but I know that when the final design is chosen modifications to the design will have been made.

Candy Newman posted a reply

#5003

05 Dec 2019 15:46

Well I hope the council listen to the residents of Oakfield Road ! Have a look at the plan and see how we will be effected please.
Oakfield Road will be the only route in and out of 5 big roads. How do you square the effect that will have on us ?

Is it ok to just send all the road problems onto someone else's road?

Adrian Day posted a reply

#5004

05 Dec 2019 20:36

I agree Candy - I don't think it is fair (even though the removal of rat runners will vastly reduce the volume of traffic) - I think there's alternatives that will still prevent rat running but will reduce the dependency on your road.

David Hughes posted a reply

#5005

05 Dec 2019 23:03

Candy Newman and Adrian Day are right, but there is another factor which is the extent to which people living in the Fox Lane area will be persuaded to walk, cycle or use public transport more often than they do now. After all barriers to cars and vehicles generally are unlikely to be prevent walkers or cyclists leaving the estate by any street on the estate. However, a possible problem would be a rise in the use of motorbikes. Hopefully the Council has that thought in hand.

roger dougall posted a reply

#5006

07 Dec 2019 08:54

I feel for Candy as her road is certainly going to be flooded with more traffic, and probably going more quickly as the last experiment showed that irritated drivers seem to speed up to make up for lost time.

I am one of the lucky ones . After speaking to my accountant my I can buy a second car for both me and my wife which we can park on Aldermans Hill.Going to work via the North Circ will be a simple trip down Ulleswater or Derwent,parking and crossing the road to our second vehicle. It may even mean a quicker trip for us since everyone will be snarled up in Southgate circus so we can zip around faster.
This does mean 2 more cars on the road and 2 more cars taking up parking on the residential roads.
I can write off the cost of 2 additional cars against the business and pass on residual costs to customers .I'm not sure many people will have this luxury and moving congestion and pollution to other areas is wrong.

David has a good point about motorcycles.I have looked into this for my 2 teenagers. They are cheap and effective if you buy the' delivery' type mopeds (£950approx for a new 50cc moped)The downside for residents is the noise (Vespa like) and relatively high amount of dirty fumes each one produces . Not sure the council could stop them using residential roads as they can pass through a space wide enough for a pushchair.
With the local muggings and the buses now going to be messed up I would be happy to invest in a couple for my teenage children.This is an option I'd never considered before,I wonder if other parents feel the same.
David is correct in that motorcycle use will increase.Quite how much and to what extent it becomes a nuisance to the residents remains to be seen.

David Hughes posted a reply

#5007

07 Dec 2019 16:35

Not sure that I implied that the number of people using motorcycles would increase, only that it could happen. There are lots of reasons why a present-day citizen would be less likely to do so than the adults of my childhood, especially in a congested city like London. Though of course cyclists like me do take the risk with some help from cycle lanes.

Motorists take note: leave plenty of room when you pass a cyclists............a cyclist can wobble for all sorts of reasons. Comments should be on 'The View from the Saddle' thread rather than this one.

Karl Brown posted a reply

#5008

08 Dec 2019 12:58

The core of all this seems to be whether there is a desire to have, as Candy Newman and other Oakfield residents have promoted, streets which forms part of your own immediate neighbourhoods, which are quiet and pleasant, and where local community can flourish; or instead act as a conduit for cars and other vehicles to lash through on their way from somewhere to somewhere else. We currently have a lot of the latter type of street in the Fox Lane area and rectification is inevitably going to involve some relatively minor changes to the status quo. Let’s hope that the next iteration of the plan has the balance between all of our streets and needs reasonably aligned.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#5010

08 Dec 2019 14:28

My guess is Roger's last post has probably been drafted simply to try and antagonise those of us who believe motor vehicle use needs to fall to help the fight against climate change, reduce obesity, address the 25,000 and upwards road deaths/serious accidents in the UK each year, tackle deaths and serious illnesses from pollution and reduce noise . But if that isn't the case, then why not park your car on Alderman's Hill and walk the short distance from your home ? And buy your teenagers bikes that will be much better for their health and well-being than motorbikes?

Graham Bennett posted a reply

#5011

08 Dec 2019 20:46

Lots of debate here, but mindful that the extended deadline for response is not far away it's worth thinking if there is anything more that can be said to the Council.

I'd urge everyone (even if you've already submitted comments) to request more details about the design of the scheme and the rationale behind the design - whatever scheme they end up trialling.

All we've got is a map; the Council have not explained how the scheme will operate. For example access for large vehicles and the many other points raised on this forum.

The rationale for the particular design has not been explained. For example, on what basis do they believe the reduction in journeys made will offset the extra length of journeys that are made? What have they found from other schemes - what are the hallmarks of a successful scheme?

Have they thought through the issues fully. For example, if the hope is that some car journeys will be replaced with bikes, have they considered the impact of our disconnected cycle paths - coming out from the low-traffic area onto Aldermans Hill or Cannon Hill does not make for pleasant cycling.

I don't want to us to be experimented on with a poorly designed scheme, so I'd encourage everyone to ask to see the evidence of how the scheme has been designed. I will be very suspicious if Council make changes based purely on residents feedback - there are some well-informed people on this forum but we're not traffic engineers and don't have experience of designing low-traffic neighbourhoods so it's reasonable to expect the Council to share the rationale for the design.

A related observation - I used Google maps to give me a driving route from St Monica's church on Green Lanes to an address in Barnet. Guess what? - to get to the North Circular at the junction by Broomfield School it wanted to send me up Fox Lane and Old Park Road to get to Aldermans Hill rather than continuing along Green Lanes to the triangle.

David Hughes posted a reply

#5012

08 Dec 2019 22:57

I'm afraid I haven't grasped Graham Bennet's contribution to this thread given that the Council's underlying aim is to make The Lakes Estate a better place to live, partially/mainly by discouraging through-traffic from driving across the estate, and persuading it to stick to stick to the main roads that were designed to carry it. Possibly/probably there is also a hope that some through-traffic drivers will give up and either use public transport or cycle; it seems to me both are quite possible given that some/many drivers simply do it by habit.

Just in case Graham B. hasn't picked up that I cycle I should confirm it now. True it's not a lot of fun on many roads in London, and much more so than it was when I was young. Drivers then were often ex-cyclists and understood cyclists needs: mainly don't pass closely to someone on a bike because all sorts of things can make them wobble.

Personally I don't think cycle lanes are at the heart of the issue at hand now. Sure they can create a little security and priority on main roads, but in a city, where traffic speeds should be slow, the risk of being on the carriageway ought not to be high. Think about the cycling countries in northern Europe: cyclists there carry their babies on their bikes or in a trolley behind their 'bike', and I haven't heard that casualties are high. In France cyclists can ignore traffic lights.

I guess there's quite a lot more to be said in this conversation, but for today I would only say that with regard to the journey to Barnet, Google Maps will have to change its advice should the Quieter Neigbourhood scheme be adopted more or less as it now. Times change.

roger dougall posted a reply

#5013

09 Dec 2019 12:50

Why is sharing a 'work around' to a problem of roads being closed at one end classed as antagonising?

Adrian Day posted a reply

#5014

09 Dec 2019 13:48

The roads won’t be closed. Answer to your question in my earlier post.

roger dougall posted a reply

#5015

09 Dec 2019 13:56

Mmmmmmmmm?I would bet most of us don't agree with the pedantic definition you are using for closed.

Adrian Day posted a reply

#5016

09 Dec 2019 16:52

I saw a very elderly lady trying cross Fox Lane yesterday. She was pushing a shopping trolley. She was trying to cross the road - no-one stopped for her. She waited and waited and eventually gambled on crossing as fast as she could. To her the roads are a barrier - I'm sure she'll welcome the streets on our Estate being opened up to pedestrians and cyclists.

David Hughes posted a reply

#5017

09 Dec 2019 22:15

In his last post to this thread Graham Bennett said this:

"The rationale for the particular design has not been explained. For example, on what basis do they believe the reduction in journeys made will offset the extra length of journeys that are made? What have they found from other schemes - what are the hallmarks of a successful scheme?"

So let us begin by re-stating the Council's policy which is to create a Quieter Neighbourhood (QN).

Here are the Council's aims:
- reduce the volume of motor traffic in residential neighbourhoods
-reduce the speeds that people drive at on our residential streets
-reduce the ability for people driving to 'rat run' through residential streets
- improve the liveability, amenity and safety of our neighbourhoods
-enable residents to walk and cycle safely from their front door, to connect with
public transport or major walking and cycling routes
-increase the health and wellbeing of residents and strengthen community
cohesion ".

Note that there are no references to length of journeys within the QN; it's all about 'quality of life'.

Now it seems to me that on the Council's original design for this QN, which provides for only one entrance for vehicles, the amount of driving internally by residents/visitors/trades people will be more than really desirable, and it is on that issue we should be concentrating. Unless of course you are against the concept as it seems many people are. Personally I think the concept is wonderful............ not least because the scheme should enable kids to play on the streets, or at least make their own journeys within the QN; a bit less dominance for drivers, a bit more for parents and kids on foot.

Now I'm going to repeat something I've said in other threads, and elswhere: kids have had a bad deal from the 'car-age'. As a child before the car-age really got going I played on my parents residential street, sometimes even after dark - it's been a long time since most children had those freedoms. That change is "the hallmark of a successful scheme"

Karl Brown posted a reply

#5020

11 Dec 2019 14:05

With 3500 households in the Fox Lane area a rough view suggests perhaps 5-600 within the Meadway area would have been rerouted by the original proposal (Ridgeway, Greenway and others to the north). Assume for simplicity that they each have one car (some will have more, other less) and each household does a there and back journey every day (again some will do more, others less). That’s a ballpark 1200 vehicle throughput per day. Add in deliveries, friend’s visits, tradesman and sundry and also reduce for these same residents and third parties already using the proposed exit streets and it’s unlikely it’ll reach 1500 vehicle through trips per day.
That’s about 25% of what Fox Lane residents suffer; less than half of what is seen in eg The Mall or Amberley, also Old Park Road; and also less than several other local streets. And it’s not pleasant at those higher levels.
So perhaps the real issue is the incremental journey time for many. Why the large cul de sac approach rather than, say, closing streets in the middle I don’t know. Possibly it’s a necessary coherence for the emergency services or bin wagons, or maybe just representing how new housing estates would be laid out.
It would be helpful for residents if the council could explain a little more background, possibly to include details they hold on trip numbers and entry / exit journeys, which informed their suggestion.

Chelsea Dawson posted a reply

#5022

11 Dec 2019 15:10

With respect, I think some of those making comments on this forum are missing the point. The quieter neighbourhood aspects are a nice side effect to our primary concern, that of reducing our individual and communal global carbon footprint. There is little use in making the streets safe for children to play on, if their own children will be forced to exist in a world made completely inhospitable and dangerous by those who do not take the climate threat seriously. Petrol and diesel cars and commercial vehicles need to be banned and well before the currently proposed timescale and more money put into public transport to make it effective, clean and a “no-brainer” choice for moving about.

As I have mentioned before, there will be some uncomfortable changes we all will have to make. Removing meat from our diets, not travelling by aircraft (which will incidentally boost our domestic tourist industry), sourcing our products and purchases locally, building new sustainable property and properly insulating the homes that have already been built. Replacing all concrete and slate roofs with solar panels for those that can afford it and by heavily subsidising the work for those who cannot. Opting to buy our energy from a company that sources its power from 100% renewable sources. Where possible, working from home and highly discouraging events such as pop concerts and sporting events that induce many individuals to needlessly travel. I am aware that most of these changes are already in the boiling pot but the time has come to take this threat seriously and to take action now.

David Hughes posted a reply

#5024

11 Dec 2019 17:45

Chelsea D. you are spot-on in reminding us that there is much to be done towards reducing carbon emissions, but we live in a context where the State is not prepared to take the necessary steps to limit car use. Meanwhile most people value the flexibility of car, and are prepared to take the climate risk. However, the envisaged change to the Lakes Estate - not being able to use it as a shortcut/less congested route - might, in the very long run, persuade at least some through-drivers to travel by a different means.

I should remind you that the Council has in recent times created cycle lanes on the A105 Green Lanes, thereby encouraging cycling, and restraining traffic in the expectation that some drivers will abandon their cars, and either walk, cycle or use public transport for short journeys. These sorts of changes are not a quick fix, but they do show that, at least whilst the current councillors are in power, some pressure on carbon emissions is being made.

All of which you will think is not nearly enough, and I agree. But Councils can only operate within their powers.

See also...

When we design streets for children, we create places that work better for everyone

Women cyclists call for freedom to ride without fear of injury or abuse

Getting around the clean, green way: hear from parents determined to make streets safer for their kids (and all of us)

Council publishes proposals for Bowes East and Edmonton Green quieter neighbourhoods

Council launches engagement phase for 'Bowes East' quieter neighbourhood

Filter news by subject tag

Subject Tags

Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood: Public exhibition information*

The Journey so far

The Project Stages

The outcomes

Benefits

Dis-benefits

The next steps

Links

See also...

When we design streets for children, we create places that work better for everyone

Women cyclists call for freedom to ride without fear of injury or abuse

Getting around the clean, green way: hear from parents determined to make streets safer for their kids (and all of us)

Council publishes proposals for Bowes East and Edmonton Green quieter neighbourhoods

Council launches engagement phase for 'Bowes East' quieter neighbourhood

Filter news by subject tag

Subject Tags

Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood: Public exhibition information*

The Journey so far

The Project Stages

The outcomes

Benefits

Dis-benefits

The next steps

Links

Discuss this article