Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood moves a step closer

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

A public notice published in this week's Enfield Independent gives notice that five experimental traffic orders relating to the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood Area will come into effect on 7th September.

The scheme will be as shown below. Click on the map to enlarge.

map of fox lane quieter neighbourhood design july 2020

Notice published in Enfield Independent on 26 August 2020

LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

FOX LANE QUIETER NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA

CONWAY ROAD N14, DERWENT ROAD N13, DEVONSHIRE ROAD N13, FOX LANE N13, GROVELANDS ROAD N13, LAKESIDE ROAD N13, MEADWAY N14, OAKFIELD ROAD N14, OLD PARK ROAD N13, SELBORNE ROAD N14 AND THE MALL N14 - EXPERIMENTAL ROAD CLOSURES, LOADING BAY, AT ANY TIME WAITING RESTRICTIONS, REMOVAL OF PARKING SPACE AND SUSPENSION OF A ONE-WAY TRAFFIC SYSTEM

AMBERLEY ROAD N13, BOURNE AVENUE N14, BURFORD GARDENS N13, BUTTERY MEWS N14, CANNON ROAD N14, CAVERSHAM AVENUE N13, CONWAY ROAD N14, CRANLEY GARDENS N13, CROMIE CLOSE N13, CROTHALL CLOSE N13, DERWENT ROAD N13, DEVONSHIRE ROAD N13, DEVONSHIRE CLOSE N13, DOVEDON CLOSE N14, FOX LANE N13, FOXGROVE N14, GREENWAY N14, GROVELANDS ROAD N13, HARLECH ROAD N14, KERRY CLOSE N13, LAKESIDE ROAD N13, LUCERNE CLOSE N13, MEADWAY N14, NORMAN WAY N14, OAKFIELD ROAD N14, OLD PARK ROAD N13, PELLIPAR CLOSE N13, PARKWAY N14, RIDGEMEAD CLOSE N14. ST GEORGE'S ROAD N13, SELBORNE ROAD N14, THE MALL N14, THE RIDGEWAY N14, ULLESWATER ROAD N14 AND WESTLAKE CLOSE N13 - EXPERIMENTAL 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT

Further information may be obtained on the project page: https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/foxlaneQN Alternatively, please email us on:

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Enfield on 26 August 2020 made the Enfield (Prescribed Routes) (No. 6) Experimental Traffic Order 2020, the Enfield (Waiting and Loading Restriction) (No. 187) Experimental Traffic Order 2020, the Enfield (Goods Vehicles Loading Bay) (No. 5) Experimental Traffic Order 2020, the Enfield (Residents and Shared Use Parking Places) (Palmers Green) (No. 1) Experimental Traffic Order 2020 and the Enfield (20 m.p.h. Speed Limit) (No. 2) Experimental Traffic Order 2020 under sections 9 and 10 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Orders will come into operation on 7 September 2020.

2. The general effect of the Orders will be to:

(1) close Fox Lane N13 to through motor traffic by prohibiting motor vehicles from entering that length of Fox Lane which lies between the common boundary of Nos. 7/8 and Nos. 9/10 The Walk, Fox Lane and a point 45 metres north-west of that common boundary (this will be achieved by placing planters on each side of the bridge over the railway);

(2) close Meadway N14 to through motor traffic by prohibiting north-eastbound motor vehicles from traveling further north-east, and south-westbound motor vehicles from traveling further south-west, than the common boundary of Nos. 53 and 55 Meadway;

(3) suspend the one-way traffic system in Devonshire Road N13;

(4) prohibit vehicles, except pedal cycles, from entering or leaving:

(a) Conway Road N14, Derwent Road N13, Grovelands Road N13, Lakeside Road N13, Old Park Road N13, Selborne Road N14 and The Mall N14 at their junctions with Fox Lane N13;

(b) Devonshire Road N13 at its junction with Green Lanes N13; and

(c) Oakfield Road N14 at its junction with The Mall N14, by placing planters and bollards in these roads;

(5) introduce a loading bay in Meadway N14, outside Nos. 38 and 38A High Street, Southgate, that will operate between 7 am and 5 pm on every day during which
time only goods vehicles being loaded or unloaded may park there for not more than 20 minutes at a time;

(6) remove the resident permit holder's parking place and parts of parking places situated in Devonshire Road N13 (a) adjacent to the side of No. 397 Green Lanes, (b) outside Nos. 29 and 31 and (c) outside Nos. 56 and 58, and replace them with waiting restrictions that operate at any time";

(7) introduce waiting restrictions to operate at any time in (a) certain lengths of Conway Road N14, Derwent Road N13, Devonshire Road N13, Grovelands Road N13, Lakeside Road N13, Old Park Road N13, Selborne Road N14 and The Mall N14 by extending the double yellow lines at the junctions referred to sub-paragraphs

(4)(a) and (4)(b) above, and (b) Meadway N14 outside Nos. 48 to 54 and Nos. 51 to 57 Meadway; and (c) Oakfield Road N14, near its junction with The Mall N14;

(8) introduce a 20 m.p.h. maximum speed limit on motor vehicles proceeding in Amberley Road N13, Bourne Avenue N14, Burford Gardens N13, Buttery Mews N14, Cannon Road N14, Caversham Avenue N13, Conway Road N14, Cranley Gardens N13, Cromie Close N13, Crothall Close N13, Derwent Road N13, Devonshire Road N13, Devonshire Close N13, Dovedon Close N14, Fox Lane N13, Foxgrove N14, Greenway N14, Grovelands Road N13, Harlech Road N14, Kerry Close N13, Lakeside Road N13, Lucerne Close N13, Meadway N14, Norman Way N14, Oakfield Road N14, Old Park Road N13, Pellipar Close N13, Parkway N14, Ridgemead Close N14. St George's Road N13, Selborne Road N14, The Mall N14, The Ridgeway N14, Ulleswater Road N14 and Westlake Close N13.

3. Due to the current Coronavirus pandemic the experimental Orders, statement of reasons and plans cannot currently be inspected at the Civic Centre. However, in line with guidance from the Department for Transport, the following alternative arrangements have been made:

(a) the experimental Orders, statement of reasons and plans can be inspected online at: https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/roads-and-transport/traffic-management-orders/

(b) copies of the documents referred to above can also be obtained by emailing or by writing to Traffic & Transportation (quoting reference TG52/1451), Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XD.

These arrangements will apply until the experimental Orders cease to have effect.

4. The Council will consider in due course whether the provisions of the experimental Orders should be continued in force indefinitely by means of permanent Orders made under sections 6, 45, 46 and 84(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Any person may object to the making of the permanent Orders, within a period of six months beginning with the date on which the experimental Orders come into operation or, if any of the Orders are varied by another Order or modified pursuant to section 10(2) of the 1984 Act, beginning with the date on which the variation or modification or the latest variation or modification comes into force. Any such objection or any representation must be made in writing and must state the grounds on which any objection is made and be sent to the Head of Traffic and Transportation, the Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XD, or by e-mail to quoting the reference TG52/1451.

5. Under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, any letter you write to the Council in response to this Notice may, upon written request, be made available to the press or to the public, who would be entitled to take copies of it if they so wished.

6. If any person wishes to question the validity of the Orders or of any of their provisions on the grounds that it or they are not within the powers conferred by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, or that any requirement of that Act or of any instrument made under that Act has not been complied with, that person may, within 6 weeks from the date on which the Orders are made, apply for the purpose to the High Court.

Dated 26 August 2020
David B Taylor
Head of Traffic and Transportation

Links

Let's Talk Enfield: Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood

Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood leaflet - July 2020

Slides with data visualisations

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#5489
26 Aug 2020 17:53
File Attachment:


There are probably still people who think that there isn't a problem with traffic in the Fox Lane area. If any of them live in Amberley Road, where this picture was taken at the weekend, then they're either deluded or get a kick from being narrowly missed by a heavy metal object travelling at high speed.

This was, and ought still to be, a quiet suburban residential street, but is plagued by rat-runners, some of whom drive much too fast along a short street with a sharp corner. This car wasn't directly hit by the offending driver - another parked car was shunted onto it and up onto the bonnet.

Once the low-traffic neighbourhood comes into effect, the only drivers using these streets will be people who live there or are visiting. They will treat their area and their neighbours with consideration, unlike many of the rat-runners currently speeding through the area who couldn't give a monkey's about the noise and danger they create.

PS Probably unfair on rats, perhaps we should call them cockroach runners?
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5492
27 Aug 2020 13:24
Is there one person living on this neighbourhood who didn't know what the traffic, which really isn't that bad compared to many other areas in the borough, was like when they bought their house?

Now their NIMBY approach will increase traffic in the surrounding areas, whilst enhancing their house prices, none of which will be passed on to cover the costs of this scheme.

This is a selfish scheme , ill thought out and just totally unnecessary.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5493
27 Aug 2020 20:28
Yes - me. When I moved into the Fox Lane area 25 years ago the traffic in my road was a lot lower. It's increased (as it has on so many residential roads) due to apps such as Waze and Google sending drivers bypassing A roads. So much so it's now a high-traffic neighbourhood - with all the associated issues of pollution, noise and danger. And other things have changed since then - we have climate change, obesity and air-pollution related illness crises so we need to encourage sustainable travel. Low traffic neighbourhoods are one of several ways we can encourage walking and cycling and discourage car use for short journeys. The good news is LTNs are being rolled out throughout London right now - the Council's long term plan is that every residential area will be an LTN. In fact LTNs are one thing central government, the GLA and our Borough Council are all agreed on!
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5499
28 Aug 2020 10:43
I'm sorry but I'd imagine that the increase in traffic since 1995 is fairly minimal and pollution levels will actually have dropped due to hybrid/electric cars and fewer diesel cars.

Fox Lane is a B Road and is , therefore, not designated as a side road. The speed humps on it are, possibly, technically against the rules.

LTNs, like the ridiculous, almost unused, cycle lane on Green Lanes are a fad and will be replaced in the future as policies change. Perhaps they are necessary for side roads but they are not for B Roads.
PG Celt posted a reply
#5500
28 Aug 2020 11:54
I am not sure the use of the crashed car which was the result of a stolen vehicle at 3am by two youths can be directly associated with the need to implement the traffic control measures.

20mph speed limit and speed bumps would feel sufficient to me. We are residents of London after all, a bit of traffic is inevitable but rat runners travelling at 40mph+ is a concern especially given the family orientated nature of the area.

Can’t help but feel all of this funding could be put to better use.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5501
28 Aug 2020 12:46
We know that the Council has spent a lot of time and effort on the scheme, and perhaps we should remember that the original idea stems from big changes made very successfully in Germany: basically a through road with residential areas on either side becoming the equivalent of quiet villages for children as much adults. A selfish scheme it is not; it is a very well intended scheme which is known to work though inevitably there will be difficulties before drivers get used to it, or decide to use public transport, or cycle, or walk.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5502
28 Aug 2020 20:32
I'm sorry that in my earlier contribution today I forgot to respond to Richard Carlowe's reference to the 'ridiculous' cycle lanes on the A105 Green Lanes between the North Circular Road and Enfield town. Certainly they are not as substantial as most cycle lanes in northern Europe with it's advanced cycling habit, but they are helpful for cyclist not used to cycling among traffic or through the various shopping areas where the cycle lanes are on the pavement.

But that is not all: from the Government downwards there is concern about our under-exercised population so used to automatically easing itself behind a steering wheel where public transport, or cycling, or walking would be a better option, especially as cars add many pollutants which are bad for everyone especially childrens' brain development. Don't forget the Government provided £100million to encourage cycling in London funneling it through Boris Johnson when he was London's mayor. Three London boroughs benefited from that sum, Enfield was one of them.

Richard C' is going to find it very difficult to find a source to stem the tide towards more walking and cycling, hence better, nicer and safer streets.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5504
30 Aug 2020 13:13
We should be clear, Fox Lane in not a B Road (nor a C Road), rather a heavily used residential street.
PG Celt’s preference for the sufficiency of 20mph plus speed bumps was indeed the outcome of three plus years of work by a large team of local residents plus the council over a decade since. GLA funding was secured, but ultimately not wide local support. So I think we have to say we’ve tried that one. Cutting edge at the time (except for Ealing), awareness of various traffic issues and preferred solutions has moved considerably since then.
I see the desire to tax any increases in property values as a consequence of lower traffic disturbance as simply highlighting what a nuisance, and indeed financial cost, traffic must therefore be. Externalities (the cost to society) were calculated at roughly £1600 per vehicle some years back by one university (a similar ballpark figure was published by the Cabinet Office). That before air quality and climate impacts would have been factored in at the level of awareness we now hold.
Good luck to Bowes residents. Many people have worked for an immense period of time in Fox Lane to address not dissimilar issues. We wait to see if our own latest trial provides sufficient answer. Certainly there is no magic bullet and there will be changes required to current behaviour. And as Chris Bland mentions, the intent to move away from cars and towards active travel – London wide in this case – is indeed policy, at all levels. The many LTN’s are about more than simply cutting out through traffic.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5509
31 Aug 2020 20:32
Strong message coming from National Government circles that schemes such as this will be halted. The picture of a fire engine on a way to an emergency, that got trapped by a road closing large plant pot this week has not helped the cause. The FBU are against such schemes as they increase their response times.

Fox Lane was closed off at one end this week, by Thames Water, causing access problems/delays for ambulances to various care/residential homes. Why should this become a permanent problem?

Fixing the pavements at the end of Pellipar Close, forcing the removal of some of the scaffolding on the Fox Pub so that wheelchairs can access the pavement and adding a pedestrian crossing on Green Lanes close to the Post Office would be far more sensible
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5510
02 Sep 2020 16:33
I do believe that the strong message coming from National Government circles is indeed of a u-turn, but that currently applies to so much of their activity. There’s no reason to expect HMG’s approach to LTN’s to be unique in its shot at national leadership. In the world of traffic I understand a double u-turn is termed a donut. Let’s hopefully see what actually occurs across many UK and more local trials.
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5515
05 Sep 2020 01:48
In response to #5489 and the photo of the crashed car. This was the result of criminal activity and could have happened anywhere. To use this as justification for the low traffic scheme is absurd. It's like saying there has been a serious increase in shoplifting at Sainsbury's so we are going to close Sainsbury's.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5516
05 Sep 2020 09:40
Rather than close a store in such circumstances the approach tends to be to install CCTV, employ security guards, electronically tag high value goods as well as employ other, less obvious, techniques, the cost of which is then spread across all law abiding shoppers. There may be an analogy there.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5517
05 Sep 2020 18:42
A low traffic neighbourhood is designed to stop speeding, dangerous rat runners carving through residential areas; the crashed car was a speeding rat runner. Why would anyone support a high-traffic neighbourhood?
David Hughes posted a reply
#5520
06 Sep 2020 19:01
To answer Adrian D's question on 5th September I think lots of people, not to say most, would support a high-traffic neighbourhood, although the vast majority of them would not think of it in that light. For them it is the most natural thing in the world to have a car(s) parked close to home and in constant use without a thought of dangerous air quality, an under exercised community and what lack of chatting with neighours means for social cohesion. How well do most people know their neighbours in your street? Personally I very rarely see families chatting with their neighbours as they did when I was young, though I should say I'm a long way into my 80s, and lots of, most, people didn't own a car so they met neighbours in the course of going to work or doing the shopping .

I confess that I'm a cyclist rather than a walker - I find it is very kind to the hips as I age - and cycling isn't quite as conducive to social exchange as walking - but it's not as isolating as shutting yourself in a car for those the short local trips which can be so conducive to neighbourliness.
Irene Tagg Lieven posted a reply
#5524
08 Sep 2020 16:17
I live in Fox Lane, the speed of the traffic and amount of cars going up and down is horrendous and we were upset when our young cat was run over and killed and the person didn't even stop. It is inconvenient to have to drive that bit extra, when you are used to a certain route, but I am so looking forward to a quieter Fox Lane. This road has been abused as a major road and short cut for a long time. The speeding cars do not take into account the many school children crossing to go to St Monica's too. The benefit to all the Lake Roads is that each one will be in its own oasis of calm, traffic just coming in and out for the people who live there. I am really glad that this scheme is being tried out
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5525
08 Sep 2020 21:22
First to be closed off, and unlike the previous planter trial where it was clear within the first hour that they were having no effect on traffic volume or speed, yesterday’s closure of OPR (Fox Lane end) had an immediate impact. It was the silence that was most noticeable, or more specifically the removal of the constant background hum topped with the too-frequent heavy wagon growl or screaming revs from a top-end speeder popping through the gears.
A lot of northbound vehicles missed or ignored the signage and were forced to U turn; something presumably they will not try again as things bed down. But there were also a noticeable number of drivers who instead mounted the pavement to carry on their way, selfishly trashing the concept, and perhaps breaking the law “but in a very specific and limited way” , which now appears to be the way in the UK according to HMG.
Collections of black, green and brown bins were undertaken seamlessly.
Rumours of a fire tender unable to access this street and a high speed police chase, also on OPR, curtailed when the moped rider passed through the barrier were missed by us residents but the posted fantasy probably helped someone get grief off their chest. Ideally the trial will be assessed on submitted evidence rather than such claims. I’ve no doubt input from the emergency services themselves will be firmly in the council’s assessment loop.
PG Celt posted a reply
#5526
09 Sep 2020 08:10
Re the crashed car - it’s interesting that rat runners must also operate at 3am in the morning in stolen cars as well as the more regular rush hour periods.

The traffic over the past 48 hours on the arterial roads that remain open has been absurd. Fantastic that our roads are quiet, woo hoo, but the view that we can all walk or cycle everywhere is unrealistic. What about those who are disabled or residents (many of which there are) with small children. Can everyone get everything that they need on foot within PG, I doubt it?

It feels a very insular scheme to only benefit a few. Any environmental argument seems irrelevant as the increase in idling cars on fox lane and Alderman’s hill is probably causing more impact than before.

So back to my original suggestion. What’s the issue with speed bumps and 20 mph speed limit?

If we want PG open and to thrive this does not seem the way to do it.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5528
09 Sep 2020 12:50
The North Circular eastbound remains closed from Wilmer Way to Green Lanes after a very serious accident at its junction with Powys Lane. That’s pushing half its 50000+ vehicles per day into PG causing massive congestion on arterial roads.
Work on Fox Lane LTN is expected to be complete in about three weeks after which the impact can be assessed and everyone’s input supplied to the council.
The area in question will be 20mph and those speed humps already in place will remain. It’s worth recalling that the insertion of humps in Fox Lane resulted in an increase in traffic speed. Driver behaviour is clearly a tricky item to predict.
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5533
10 Sep 2020 00:52
Re #5524
As a cat owner all my life I sympathise with the loss of your cat. I have also lost a cat to a road accident, albeit when I lived in a very quiet road. It can be very painful to lose a pet in this way but it is a risk for all of us who choose to own pets in a city.
With respect to Fox Lane being used as a short cut, the road has been a thoroughfare for more than two hundred years before any houses were ever built on it. Its winding nature is testament to its age and it was the natural route from the early Palmers Green to Old Southgate. So rather than regarding this as a short cut any other route could be regarded as a detour. None of this really helps find a solution to the current situation but bear in mind in creating your oasis of calm you will increase the pollution for those of us who live on the outskirts of your oasis with an overall net increase in pollution as this traffic will be queueing and idling. Queueing traffic produces denser air pollution as the lack of moving traffic means it doesn’t get dispersed.
Can anyone tell me how the result of the trial is going to be adjudicated ? How can we compare figures for traffic, pollution etc. that were taken a year ago with any that are taken now ? Any change in any direction could be due to the consequences of Covid. If there is less traffic is it because more people are now working from home, or not working at all and if there is an increase in traffic could this be due to people avoiding public transport ?
Bill Linton posted a reply
#5534
10 Sep 2020 12:35
Things have changed a bit in 200 years! If we revert to how things were then, the Lakes Estate apart from Fox Lane itself did not exist, so nobody should be allowed to drive on any of the side roads!
As for extra pollution on the surrounding roads, overwhelming evidence from other LTNs suggests that much of the traffic expelled from the Estate will simply evaporate. It's counter-intuitive, but that seems to be how it works. People start to walk, cycle or get the bus instead. In any case my experience of Bourne Hill and Aldermans Hill is that queueing is relatively unusual, so even if there is a few % rise in traffic on them it probably won't result in much idling - extra fumes from their passage yes, but not from idling.
Irene Tagg Lieven posted a reply
#5535
10 Sep 2020 13:36
The issue with speed bumps and 20 mph is that neither is working.
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5539
11 Sep 2020 00:55
Hi Bill
The point about the age of the road (350 yrs) was to demonstrate that it has always been the route between the original buildings in Palmers Green and Old Southgate and not a short cut through a residential area as Irene had suggested.
When the plots either side of it were sold off for development in 1902, the first plots forming the Old Park Estate (1905-1914) were built up with what was considered at the time “highly condensed” housing. However the builders had the foresight to build wide roads in the expectation of traffic. Compare the width of the Lakes estate roads with those on the Hazelwood side of Green Lanes. The Lakes roads are a whole car width wider which begs the question, if danger to pedestrians and cyclists is the issue, why is the Lakes Estate getting priority of traffic calming over the far more dangerous roads off Hazelwood Lane. These roads are also used as “rat runs” and Hazelwood School is in the middle of it. The Lakes Estate has no schools other than St. Monica’s which is only accessed by vehicle from outside the estate or by walking through from the very quiet Conway Rd.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with restrictions on speed and even night time closure or the introduction of ANPR, cameras or the many other things suggested to slow or restrict traffic. It's just total closure of the whole large network of roads is extreme and just shifts the problem elsewhere.
If the traffic doesn't evaporate and there are queues and congestion in the surrounding roads, will you agree that the trial has failed?
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5541
11 Sep 2020 10:08
Regarding 'Rat Runners', I don't think anybody would deny that there are drivers who use the roads concerned as short cuts and cut-throughs, but this phenomenon has been exacerbated by road closures, road narrowing and traffic signal phasing elsewhere.
But as a resident in the LTN, am *I* being (mis)identified as a 'Rat Runner' too? How are we deciding who is a 'Rat Runner' and who is a resident simply going about their business in leaving home, and arriving home, in the area? And now that I am no longer able to drive due East after leaving my home, and have to take a wide detour North or South before being able to do so - whilst adding to congestion in being somewhere I didn't want to be - am I not going to be seen as being a 'Rat Runner' in somebody else's area?
I agree that there are a small number of drivers who consistently drive at recklessly high speeds on our local roads, but they are doing something illegal and they should caught and brought to justice. Many of them would face an instant driving ban if properly apprehended with full supporting evidence. A clampdown and regular law enforcement stings on these individuals would have gone a long way to solving that particular problem.
roger dougall posted a reply
#5542
11 Sep 2020 12:59
Are emergency vehicles able to access the closed roads along Fox Lane through the filters?
Surely not all vehicles have a set of keys to open them. They don't appear to have a lock anyway.
Seems a bit worrying if they have to go the long way round.
Thanks to the responder
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5543
11 Sep 2020 16:11
Apologies for message repetition but to Alan Thomas the policy is no longer to view streets, towns and cities as they appear through a windscreen but rather how they operate in supporting active travel. Take these current changes from that viewpoint and a different picture emerges. It changes many decades worth of previous policy direction so will inevitably take some getting used to. The faster the more of us do so, the easier this particular journey will be.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5546
11 Sep 2020 23:17
To Mr Karl Brown; I'm viewing this situation through the front windows of my Lakes Estate house and - in this forum's case - on the computer screen in front of me. If "getting used to" was the prime mover here, it would surely apply to the increase in motorised vehicle use and its forced displacement onto residential roads in the Fox Lane area too.
I'm guessing I'll have to wait for an answer to my 'Rat Runner' question...
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5547
12 Sep 2020 02:09
Re #5516

Thanks Karl. We seem to be in agreement. A mixed measure of traffic calming methods, maybe night time closure, ANPR access for local residents, chicanes, speed cameras etc. but no overall closure of all the roads. After all these roads, particularly Fox Lane itself, were always built to serve a purpose other than getting people to their houses.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5548
12 Sep 2020 10:35
Sorry to disappoint Peter Payne but I don’t see any of the mutual agreement he claims: I don’t see how chicanes will impact on the objective of removing through traffic, while night time closures would impact a mere tiny percentage of the same. ANPR is either a cost to residents or a charge to misdemening motorists requiting the repeated breaching of the objective to sustain required income levels, a clear paradox. More specifically, and personally, I can see no justification why as a resident of a certain area I should have greater vehicle rights than those not living in that same area. The Fox Lane LTN space will be fully permeable to all of London’s residents.
When the LTN work is complete in 2-3 weeks, and after the inevitable bedding in hiccups, the impact can be seen and views provided. That said, after one week on the first changed street and a major transport thoroughfare we now have kids cycling and playing out, parents pushing prams and dogs being walked on the wider spaces and a clearly more relaxed atmosphere, almost as if a form of nature was reasserting control. Our own necessary car trips to eg up the A1 and earlier today to B&Q to collect heavies were a tad longer but we survived. The first drivers mounting the pavement to avoid the barrier are in course of prosecution which will hopefully cap the practise and so assist with what the trial seeks to determine.
Let’s see what happens over the coming months but from here, so far so good.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5549
12 Sep 2020 10:39
I'm not aware of any techniques used to force drivers onto Fox Lane's residential streets, that and the speed they choose to drive was always a personal decision. As i repeatedly say, the pendulum of policy being car focused has swung completely the other way. we are now seeing implementation. Expect more.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5552
13 Sep 2020 08:04
Bill Linton wrote:

As for extra pollution on the surrounding roads, overwhelming evidence from other LTNs suggests that much of the traffic expelled from the Estate will simply evaporate. It's counter-intuitive, but that seems to be how it works.


Meanwhile in Wandsworth:

https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/september-2020/low-traffic-neighbourhood-trials-suspended/
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5554
15 Sep 2020 00:05
But Karl you seemed to suggest in your reply to the Sainsbury's analogy that the supermarket would take up several different measures to stop the illegal or antisocial activities but not close the supermarket.
The Lakes Estate residents have concerns about pollution, speed and noise which may be addressed in other ways than closing the whole estate down to traffic, pushing the problem to the surrounding roads.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5555
15 Sep 2020 11:02
Responding to Peter Payne, it’s probably worth reflecting on the fact that LTN are a HMG initiative now rolling out widely, and quickly, across the country. London for example has seen them developing over a number of years, presumably proving the concept to HMG’s satisfaction.
More locally, rather than pushing the problem elsewhere, a difficult task in itself given that the problem seems to be surfaced as a concern pretty much everywhere, the Fox Lane area LTN (which is much wider than simply The Lakes element) seeks to be one part of a long term solution to help resolve the problem. I think I’ve posted the same message a few times this month already, but policy no longer puts traffic (“the problem”) as the aspect to satisfy, rather it is support of active travel. If I can quote from last week’s LBE Cabinet papers when addressing future transport spend as a recent and local example:-

It should be noted that the vast majority of the proposed programmes and schemes support the uptake of active and sustainable travel modes so, as well as addressing the outcomes in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, they contribute to the Council’s commitment in relation to addressing the effects of climate change;


Move those walkable, cycleable or public transport facilitated journeys currently met by a car and we are all living and moving about in a different world.
Once a problem is accepted as a problem best it gets addressed directly rather than danced-around. HMG seems to have concluded and acted. I’m now waiting for the imminent trial to see the impact locally as part of the bigger picture.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5557
16 Sep 2020 00:24
As ever Karl B. is right to reflect the fact that LTN are being rolled out widely across the country, not least elsewhere in London. Germany seems to have been the first to create the idea of a main road (in our case the A105 Green Lanes) with a series of slow-traffic residential areas like the Lakes Estate on either side. And I hope that I'm right in thinking that at least one other similar area has already been completed within our project. There will be more areas similar in basic concept as time progresses.

Personally I, and several other people I know, are very pleased with the overall project so far, but for me the crucial benefit will be for children who have lost most in the car age.
Brian Conn posted a reply
#5559
17 Sep 2020 07:44
Well having had a few days of continuous stream of cars, lorries and vans pouring endlessly through Oakfield Road, Norman Way and Greenway, I am now at breaking point.

Norman Way, which is perhaps one of the narrowest roads on the area has cars speeding ridiculously screeching round the bend onto Greenway. A fatality will surely happen. Norman Way was a exceptionally qieit road and now a major thoroughfare.

Journey time from home to get anywhere has added 10 mins and to get to head down waterfall road by car is now an additional 1.5miles.

I have to say the whole thing is ridiculous and rat running could have been solved by installing ANPR allowing residents unfettered access.

Yet another hairbrained scheme!!
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5560
17 Sep 2020 08:32
Brian Conn – welcome to the world the residents of many local streets have faced daily for the last few decades. Once fully implemented the issues you now experience will hopefully be history for all of us.
Tarnjit Dhesi posted a reply
#5561
17 Sep 2020 16:26
We park roughly half a mile from my son's school and walk the rest of the way. My child now gets to enjoy breathing the fumes of all those idling cars on all the routes available (there are three) to get to his school. Once outside the school we are met with almost standstill traffic.

Close the roads if you must but think about the implications fully and understand the real impact. The island in Southgate is not fit for purpose as a main through route.

Reduction in car travel should come from the industry not requiring staff to come into offices but work from home where possible. Industrialists have made and will make their billions while us mere ants scurry, making limited contributions through regular personal sacrifice.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5562
18 Sep 2020 15:05
Big shout out to the those who added 10 minutes to my emergency journey to see my Mum in her assisted living home in Pellipar Close which has been cut off from the rest of Fox Lane

Big shout out to those whose almost unused bike lane on Green Lanes means that a bus in either direction blocks the road entirely causing huge congestion.

Big shout out to the person who has closed Fox Lane from Green Lanes but hasn't bothered to put any Dead End signs up so p'ed off motorists are forced to turn round in Pellipar Close, blocking ambulances and endangering elderly residents out walking

This scheme needs to end NOW
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5563
19 Sep 2020 07:24
Since 2016 the University of Westminster has been analysing the impacts from traffic intervention measures across London. Data on this longitudinal study for 2020 has just been sought but findings for the 2016-2019 period is now available. I've included links so readers can delve as deep as they wish but headline summaries are positive: where there have been interventions there is more walking, more cycling, fewer cars purchased and less car use, with increasing trends over time in addition. Early days and as the research indicates, this is not a holistic catch all of every cause / effect but is strong enough to conclude desired outcomes are being achieved from the development of traffic interventions, such as LTN’s.
http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/
https://transportfindings.org/article/17128-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-car-use-and-active-travel-evidence-from-the-people-and-places-survey-of-outer-london-active-travel-interventions

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

Mel Willow posted a reply
#5564
19 Sep 2020 11:16
Not all children can cycle or walk. Some are disabled and blocking off roads to get to doctors surgeries (which have been included in the project) and forcing traffic on to main roads and prolonging journeys has great impact on some families. Yes, we are the minority here, but due to some irresponsible motorist that speed, rat race the wider community is having to pay the price. The other day, I could not turn into the street where my doctors surgery is, so I had to go round which would have been added an extra 30 minutes, but as there was an accident it took three hours and it was not pleasant with a disabled child in the car. I am all for quieter neighborhoods but this is not the solution, there must be another way and there should be more consultation before it is permanent. In an ideal world, I would love to cycle everywhere or walk, but when you have a disabled child that cannot, you need a car.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5565
19 Sep 2020 11:40
Fully appreciate not everyone can walk or cycle and sorry to hear of your long journey. However every property in an LTN is accessible by car. It's worth noting that a child is killed and 37 seriously injured every week on our roads, many walking to school; a low traffic neighbourhood reduces that risk. There is indeed a full consultation on this trial - so your 'ask' is granted.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5566
19 Sep 2020 11:47
The scheme is benefitting thousands of residents , Richard Carlowe. They can now sleep at night, safely cross their road and actually talk to each other in the street. Pellipar is not cut off from Fox Lane - anyone can walk or cycle across the bridge. Counters show thousands use the cycle lanes every week - and now it's safer to get to them thanks to the ltn, more will do so - and remember everyone who switches from car to bike leaves you more room for your car (which btw takes up the space of around 8 bikes!). Finally objectors keep moving the 'no entry' signs - putting lives at risk.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5567
19 Sep 2020 19:43
I'll be sure to tell my 88yo mother that she can cycle across the bridge to get to her Doctor's surgery on Broomfield Avenue (another ridiculous dead end btw) now rather than spend an additional 10 minutes by taxi, at additional cost. I'm sure she'll be thrilled.

How lovely that the residents, who bought a house in the area knowing exactly what the traffic was like, can talk to each other in the street. What a relief for us all.

According to reports, a cyclist uses the bike lane on Green Lanes every 3 minutes on average. And that was during the height of COVID. That is, in truth, a pathetic return on the millions wasted.

Those bikes take up space on pavements that pedestrians can use (a bike takes up about the space of 4 pedestrians btw). The pavement is now not wide enough for a wheelchair where there is excess street furniture or bank queue barriers.
Sue Hicketts posted a reply
#5569
19 Sep 2020 23:43
All I can say, Brian, is that if a few days of problem traffic on Oakfield has brought you to breaking point, it’s fortunate you don’t live on Amberley.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5573
21 Sep 2020 19:32
There are people in their late eighties who cycle, walk and use mobility aids - all of which would be a much safer trip from Pellipar to Broomfield Ave now the LTN is open (and avoids the nuisance of finding a parking space). But if, understandably, your Mother needs to go by cab then a few extra minutes is not much to ask. And imagine if each of those cyclists every 3 minutes was car..... Good luck with your campaign to open up Broomfield Avenue!
David Hughes posted a reply
#5576
23 Sep 2020 22:41
What strikes me about all this is that most contributors see the issue through a car (vehicle) windscreen, i.e. from the perspective of adults and especially adults who are drivers. Meanwhile quite a high proportion of the population are children whose development matters. What is best for them, and how does it stand against drivers needs?

Personally I'm not really knowledgeable about the territory so I'm not qualified to form a sound opinion, but - as I have written in other contexts - there are well-qualified people who think that children have the suffered most from the car age and I wouldn't want to add to that. Children generally are less able to walk/cycle to school as I did from a very early age - in my case a few days after my fifth birthday - supervised by the big girls all of six/seven years old .

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the needs of young children than me will comment because, whatever the decision, the needs of everyone should be taken into account.

Finally, young and elderly people at the other end of life are not usually, or ever, the decision-makers. Quite a few thinkers have commented on that; we should do the best we can to meet everyone's needs.
Elaine Hall-Freeman posted a reply
#5577
24 Sep 2020 08:34
You say ‘objectors’ move ‘no entry’ signs! Wrong! Some selfish person in The Mall took the Oakfield Road sign and placed it in their Road, regardless of the fact that they already had one at both ends of their street but that person was happy to leave Oakfield Road with none so please don’t label all objectors as potential life takers!
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5578
24 Sep 2020 08:51
I posted on Next Door to see what the local reaction was to the enforcement of the scheme in Fox Lane and there were over 240 comments within a few days. The only one I want to repeat here is the following which shows the impact the scheme has had already on a local business ironically using electric vehicles:

NB this was not sent by myself but the business owner.

Copy of email I sent to Cllr Barnes.

Dear Councillor

My family run a small local dog walking service in Enfield. We run 2 vans (was 4 before covid and we are struggling now to rebuild) and a high percentage of our customers live in and around The Lakes Estate.

Our business model is that we collect 4 dogs at a time and take them to a local park - normally Trent to exercise them.

As a company struggling to recover we are keeping careful records of time and costs. Please allow me to share some of them with you in relation to the last week. I hope you will find this useful at the consultation in October regarding your scheme.

Our van that covers the Lakes Estate area drove on average an extra 19.6 miles per day this week and took on average 55 minutes extra to serve all of its customers.

Those extra 19.6 miles took the total mileage beyond the range of our all electric van so all 483 miles this week were travelled in our older diesel van.

This is just one van operated by a very small company. I shudder to think of the costs to both businesses and the environment when you multiply this by the number of vehicles used by postal services, delivery services, online shopping vehicles and all the other vehicles that have multiple pick up/drop off locations in the affected area.

Just as an aside. While collecting dogs today I saw a council vehicle stop at the junction of Fox Lane and Old Park Road, remove the post, drive through, replace the post and then drive off. This was at about 1.45 pm today. Is it one rule for the council and one for everybody else?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Kind regards

Just for your info - I got the same cut and paste reply that other contributors on this forum have already reported.
Howard Toshman posted a reply
#5579
24 Sep 2020 10:05
A truly unbelievablely bad concept
On a very basic level, closing these streets means a huge increase in traffic to the remaining routes, increased danger to those people living in the remaining routes.
An increase in emissions as traffic will increase and bottlenecks develop, a greater use of fuel for everyone as they wait in traffic, something that we are trying to avoid now and for the future.
There are already fall outs from these closures with residents of the closed roads now parking on Fox Lane leaving residents of Fox Lane with nowhere to park.
I hope that in six months after this experiment has finished the council will see the real problems this action has caused and which out weigh the benefits the few
Carol Robson posted a reply
#5583
24 Sep 2020 21:50
The "other similar area that has been completed in the project", otherwise known as Bowes LTN is having as many problems and issues as Foxe Lane LTN, in case you are not aware. Huge numbers of residents have been fenced in with the only access to and from their homes via the very busy and dangerous North Circular Road which is just not acceptable from a health and safety aspect. Bowes school which sits on the A406 and already suffering from high levels of pollution is now much worse off. The displaced traffic forced on to this very busy stretch of the NCR is creating more pollution defeating the objective. Emergency vehicles are reversing down blocked roads in order to find their way to sick people increasing response times and putting lives at risk. The underpass planned for the A406 many years back and vetoed due to high costs should have gone ahead. These ill thought-out LTNs are a sticking plaster to a much wider problem and will come to fail. All under the guise of Covid 19 they are being rushed through. This is an ideology that will have casualties, it's just a matter of time, unfortunately.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5584
24 Sep 2020 23:45
I don't have a clear view of the issues in this thread because I don't know the territory well enough to make a really firm view, so tonight I'd like to ask for some clarification about a couple of points:
  • one or two contributors apart most are a thinking about the issue purely from the view behind their steering wheel. Have they thought about the issues in terms of the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and children?
  • the proposals for change by the Council will have been vetted or designed by staff trained to assess whether the feasibility of the proposals could work, and presumably the answer was 'Yes.'

As things stand the Council has my support. Our preoccupation with the needs of cars has gone too far, and children have lost too many of the freedoms I enjoyed in the mid 1950's.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5585
28 Sep 2020 17:36
Another aspect which hardly anyone has touched on is the effect of the QN scheme on emergency services and bin collections. I have seen footage of bin lorries reversing in the Lakes Area since last week. Legally they are only supposed to do this for a distance of 12 metres for obvious safety reasons. Now that is impossible. Sooner or later an accident will happen. Also in Bowes Park area ambulances also have to reverse adding time to their journeys. Nobody wants that to happen in an emergency. Also have seen footage on video of that. Is that a price worth paying?
Mrs B Waters posted a reply
#5586
29 Sep 2020 15:08
My elderly parents have now lost their independence due to these projects that have been implemented and are no longer able to drive to their doctors or anywhere else. They have been forced on to the busy North Circular Road, where they fear for their lives, so now they are housebound. No, they cannot cycle; before I too get a smart reply from someone here. Some elderly folks have health issues and are vulnerable therefore cannot access the streets on foot or bikes to get to their destination and I think the lack of consultation has missed all this out. We can all want our streets to be closed off to traffic, to want a peaceful quiet life, but you have to think of others less able or fortunate within our community. I have a young mother on my street with two Autistic children and their car is their lifeline, she cannot take them on bikes to places or by walking as their medical condition does not warrant for this. These kids have severe/complex needs and it is imperative that their mother can drive them to their doctors/hospital/community Centre without being stuck in traffic for long periods of time.
A lot of traffic has been forced on to the main roads and half of our community have not yet returned back to work due to Covid. If the Council and LTN, wish to make changes than please look at other ways on improving quality of life, but include everyone!! Journeys have now tripled in time, and vulnerable and less able members of our community are having to miss out on the extra help/time they need, as care givers/relatives are finding it increasingly difficult to get to them due to road blocks and built up traffic.
A healthy community needs to be a fair community where everyone's needs are taken into consideration and from what has become apparent is that there is a conflict amongst our community members which will create long term issues if not resolved amicably and fairly. People are already down as we are living in unprecedented times, with job loses, losing our loved ones, not being able to mix or see our loved ones etc so we all need to work together to find a middle ground that will benefit us all and caging people into their streets does not seem to be the answer.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5587
29 Sep 2020 19:59
* Since 2008, rat-running has DOUBLED on London's residential roads (and vehicles numbers on A roads has fallen slightly).
* In 2007, there were 27m registered motor vehicles in the UK. There are now 38.3m.
Something has to be done to encourage the high percentage of people who drive short distances in London when they could walk or cycle. Of course not everyone can do this so every home in an LTN is accessible by car, and if those who can walk/cycle do so the road will be clearer for those who can't. If you feel there should be design changes then suggest you complete the Council consultation. Plenty of people have objections to LTNs and similar changes - but not many have solutions.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5588
29 Sep 2020 20:19
Plenty of room at the end of my road for bin lorries to do a 3 point turn (as they do every day in hundreds of streets in Enfield - for example for 15 years plus in Broomfield Avenue). And it's much safer for the operatives now they don't have rat runners trying to squeeze by. Emergency services have been consulted on - and have approved - the design of the LTNs. Interestingly fire service response times have improved since 2005 in Walthamstow - home of of large LTN.

Attachment Ei8oISCWsAAy4c-.jpg not found

Emma Maloney posted a reply
#5589
29 Sep 2020 21:41
The LTN looks beyond car drivers and considers the health and well being of all residents. The rate traffic everyhwere is increasing is unsustainable and it is time to reimagine our communities, our streets are not just strips of tarmac for cars. The LTN may mean that some journeys are slightly longer but it also means that many journeys are safer, such as those who finally feel confident to cycle and scoot, and pleasant enough to walk through and speak to neighbours. Crossing Fox Lane is far less hazardous to cross for the less nimble. There is much evidence to show that once LTNs bed in, traffic in the surrounding area dips, and local communities thrive. It is well worth giving the LTNs a chance then to feedback constructively.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5590
30 Sep 2020 00:34
Mrs Waters makes a strong argument about the consequences of Quieter Neighbourhoods (QN), and certainly every attempt should be made to meet everyones needs. On the other hand Emma Maloney makes an excellent argument for the overall benefits of QN, and I would add 'again' that children lost most most from the car-age and for that reason alone it is time that the dominance of traffic in purely residential areas is brought to an end.

I wish that we could solve every problem, but would draw attention to the fact that Germany was much the first country to create what we call QNs, and I have not come across any long term criticism of what they have done. Meanwhile choices have to made in the interest of the majority of the community whilst thought is given to how individual problems might be solved. And finally the Council's plan was/is to encourage use of main roads, public transport, cycling and walking. Over time many things will be different, and many difficulties resolved.
David Beadle posted a reply
#5593
01 Oct 2020 05:55
I cycle more often than I use a car but still have to drive on occasions (such as driving my elderly father to appointments or shopping for him, my elderly neighbours, and my highly vulnerable brother-in-law). The Fox Lane (and Bowes) LTN schemes have doubled the time and fuel consumption of each and every journey I've made - creating more pollution not less.
As a cyclist, all the displaced traffic on other roads has not only exposed me (and pedestrians) to that increased pollution but I'm now forced to weave in and out of the massively-increased traffic jams on Alderman's Hill, Broomfield Lane, and many other roads, often into oncoming traffic - making my travelling more dangerous, not less. Meanwhile it's already very well documented how many buses are themselves caught up in that congestion - removing them as any sort of alternative means of travel.
All this was predictable and predicted but the council doesn't even have proper measurements in place to identify the very real and negative impacts on 000s of residents.
Of course people need to reduce their car usage but these LTNs are making tings worse, not better.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5594
01 Oct 2020 11:18
All of this is an issue if you have friends visiting from other parts of town. My friend drove over from Ealing yesterday and asked why there was so much traffic going into Southgate from the North Circular. I explained the LTN and he said they have four or five schemes in his borough all causing the same issues, pushing traffic onto the main roads where people still have to live and now they have even more pollution. So maybe should tell my friends to stay where they are and forget trying to visit each other.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5595
01 Oct 2020 13:24
If what you said was true why were bin lorries and ambulances reversing down some of the roads?
David Hughes posted a reply
#5596
01 Oct 2020 23:33
Neil L. could you clarify your comment about bin lorries and ambulances reversing down some of the roads. For example which roads were lorries and ambulances reversing down; if difficulties are being experienced it is important for the Council to get to know about the problems because our local administration isn't the only one contemplating change ............................ that stretches all the way back to central government.

It is interesting that no one has picked up on my comment about children's needs which seems to suggest that most contributors are thinking only of their view from behind the windscreen rather than the overall needs of our community. Could someone comment on that? Am I missing something?
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5597
02 Oct 2020 16:14
Many children need to be taken to school or to a pick up point. Their journey times have increased now.

There is no increased cycling as far as I can tell and, now that winter is approaching, there won’t be much walking either

My Mum’s carer took 20 minutes to get out of Bourne Hill on to Green Lanes last night so my Mum lost out on care. I was facing the same today so was forced to park halfway down Caversham Avenue to get to her in time

And then there’s the 2 motorbike couriers wheeling their bikes on the footpath across the railway on Fox Lane that I had to avoid.

Basically THIS SCHEME NEEDS TO END NOW
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5598
02 Oct 2020 16:27
David, Hi, picking up on your comment about children's needs, from the perspective of where I live in N21 we have a school street which has timed entry and exit for children and parents during school days. Children don't need access to the roads 24/7 if they are at school and the council already runs a borough-wide scheme of road closures for play streets at weekends so I think much of that is covered. I think the school streets initiative is a good idea but only suitable in certain roads. It doesn't work for instance on main roads where public transport is also running.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5599
02 Oct 2020 16:39
While not directly Fox Lane area LTN relevant, today’s report that HMG will be proposing road projects receiving central funding should support bus priority measures, specifically new dedicated bus lanes, certainly reemphasises the ever-clearer bigger picture which does influence LTN’s. “It is likely to be unpopular with drivers.”
To say (yet) again, the transport hierarchy now has cars at the bottom and active transport measures at the top. One realistic conclusion is that a car journey that was once viewed through the windscreen as being OK is in future likely going to be less OK as various transport spend kicks in. Locally we seem to be reasonably close to the front of that curve.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5600
02 Oct 2020 18:28
David Hughes wrote:

It is interesting that no one has picked up on my comment about children's needs which seems to suggest that most contributors are thinking only of their view from behind the windscreen rather than the overall needs of our community. Could someone comment on that? Am I missing something?


I don't understand the repeated "view from behind the windscreen" references. The comments I make on this scheme result from what I see through the windows of my home, from the pavement as I walk the streets and from the road when I'm cycling along it. All this 'Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad' thing is divisive, and many people use their cars as a vital part of modern life whilst - as I do - also walking, cycling and taking the trains and buses . They are not usually using their cars for joyriding. Lumping all car users into a box marked 'Naughty' is too simplistic. Driving is a useful option for most and a necessity for some.

I also don't quite understand the 'reclaim the streets for the children' line of thinking. I grew up in this area the best part of 60 years ago and as children we didn't expect to use the road as our playground. The Tufty Club made sure we knew that roads were for road transport, not for drawing pictures on. When we played we did it in our back garden (most of the homes round here have access to a garden, however modest) or the wonderful Grovelands, Arnos and Broomfield Parks. We walked to school all year round in any weather, but used the pavement for that and crossed the roads with due care.

It sometimes seems as though there is an ambition to turn this area into an evocation of Trumpton or Camberwick Green. Sadly, the Palmers Green of Evans and Davies, Courts, Grouts and Victor Value is long gone and it won't be coming back.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5601
02 Oct 2020 19:22
David you asked for clarification about the ambulance and bin lorry reversing down the roads. I checked with my sources and the ambulance was in the Bowes Park area and the bin lorry was in Lakeside Road opposite Aldermans Hill going a very long distance. Regardless of where they were it must indicate an issue for these services. Time will tell if they make a response to the council asking for things to be changed.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5602
04 Oct 2020 22:00
Thank you Neil L. By chance I cycled down Lakeside Road this morning, but didn't pay special attention so I'll do it again in the next few days. Bowes Park might take a day or two more dependent on weather and other commitments. Whether taking note helps me in thinking about the area we'll see.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5603
05 Oct 2020 14:55
Several personal impact issues being raised where the LTN trial can sensibly assess the breadth and depth of such problems as well as its benefits. But looking broader I’ve previously mentioned the policy move away from car priority. Standing outside the British Library on the Euston Road at the w/e this move confronted me: previously a three lane road and always chocca with traffic in both directions it has changed dramatically: the pavement obviously remains for travellers choosing to use feet and legs; the inner lane is now for people choosing to travel by bicycle; the middle lane for people choosing to travel by bus or taxi; and the outer lane (only) for people who choose to travel by car. A floating bus stop fills part of the cyclist lane to allow bus passengers to embark / disembark. Like LTN’s, I guess that’s putting money where your policy is.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5604
05 Oct 2020 17:20
I walk the LTN every day and there's a discernible increase in people walking, cycling and using scooters. In particular cycling to St Monica's has increased - so much that a new bike shed is needed. Result: healthier, more active children, less obesity and pollution. Neighbours can chat in the street without noisy rat runners drowning them out.- and several thousand people are enjoying less pollution, a better night's sleep and safer streets. And everyone can reach their home or place of work by vehicle.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5606
07 Oct 2020 08:12
The comment on this show just how unpopular this scheme is

https://www.change.org/p/london-borough-of-enfield-objection-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-and-immediate-opening-of-roads-to-traffic/c?source_location=petition_show
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5607
07 Oct 2020 10:55
Thanks to Richard Carlowe for supplying that link. With a (Government) initiative, fitting with London’s agreed and heavily consulted / challenged strategy to move from cars to active travel, I have no surprise that the initial impact is seen (and indeed felt) as negative by many drivers. The future is not the past in the transport policy space. Whether this particular version of this particular LTN will be the final version only experience and evidenced input over the trial period will reveal. I doubt that such off-the-cuff initial emotional driver anger in the link will cut it in that analysis – best that individuals give it a period to bed in and then supply experience to the consultation process. That should produce a more considered outcome for all. It might be helpful if many of the authors realised this is not a one-off LTN.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5608
07 Oct 2020 13:31
I’m sorry but this scheme does not need a “period to bed in”. It needs to be stopped immediately

It is hated. It is ill thought out and incorrectly signed. There are no warnings that some roads are dead ends.

Let’s see how many sign a petition in favour of it. I’d guess circa 200 at best.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#5609
07 Oct 2020 17:26
Richard Carlowe wrote:

I’m sorry but this scheme does not need a “period to bed in”. It needs to be stopped immediately

It is hated. It is ill thought out and incorrectly signed. There are no warnings that some roads are dead ends.

Let’s see how many sign a petition in favour of it. I’d guess circa 200 at best.


This forum is meant for sensible discussion and reasoned argument. This isn't a helpful contribution. There are no arguments why you think the scheme is bad, just that people "hate it", which is not true for everyone and not a reason for abandoning the scheme.

Yes, a lot of people do hate it. A lot of other people love it, including some who don't live in the area. Many others are happy to see how it works out before deciding what they think.

Your assumption that everyone hates these schemes is incorrect, opinion polling shows more than 50 per cent of people across the country are in favour of measures of this kind.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5610
07 Oct 2020 17:38
ROAD CLOSURES AND TRAFFIC - SOME THOUGHTS

For everyone who’s been affected by any traffic jams around Southgate & Palmers Green and think the council have finally lost the plot, here is some info I hope you will find reassuring.

OMG there’s so much traffic!
The scheme was only completed this week. This amount of traffic is totally expected for the first few weeks of a brand new low traffic neighbourhood. It won’t stay like this. Drivers will find new routes, travel at different times, or use different modes of transport - and we should end up with more or less the same levels of traffic on our main roads as before.

Emergency services won’t be able to reach people in time!
They shouldn't have any problems. All the emergency services fed into and approved the scheme design. They can enter the area via the camera ‘gates’ on Fox Lane or Meadway, or else remove a bollard with a device they carry to get through a closure.

Now I have to go the long way round...
Yes - if you’re driving. We can‘t drive directly through the area anymore because through traffic is now diverted along main roads. (To be honest, that’s where it always should have been.) But when the traffic chaos settles down it will add no more than 5 or 10 minutes to most car journeys. And if you’re walking or cycling, you get a nice, direct, low traffic route through the area - great for families on the school run.

Very nice for you lot in your posh houses on the Lakes Estate
Well, yes, it is nice seeing kids play out on their own street and hearing birdsong... but it’s not just better for residents (who don’t all live in posh houses btw), it’s better for anyone who wants to walk or cycle between Palmers Green and Southgate. If we cover the whole borough in a series of LTNs (with safe crossings to link them up) a child or elderly person could cycle safely across Enfield. And that means less driving and less pollution.

It’s making pollution worse!
It might be right now, but the effect of LTNs elsewhere has been to reduce car journeys over time and even car ownership as some people find they don’t need to drive as much. Roads being the main source of pollution in London, that’s meant fewer households exposed to illegal levels of pollution. And lots more exercise as people walk or cycle more, which is great for public health.

If you want to know more, or see links to evidence for all the outrageous claims I’m making, check out http://betterstreets.co.uk/local-areas/fox-lane-area/. And remember the whole scheme is a temporary trial using an experimental traffic order - in a couple of weeks the consultation will open and you can give your feedback to the council, who have promised to amend the scheme where necessary. See more at http://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/foxlaneQN.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5611
07 Oct 2020 17:47
I sympathise with the people who dislike the noise, danger and pollution from increased traffic - the solution is for those that can to drive less and to walk, cycle and use public transport more. Traffic increases with the supply of road space - so the low traffic neighbourhood will help those people by encouraging a traffic decrease. I doubt anybody would sign a 'for' petition as many have already signalled their desire to end the high traffic neighbourhood through a series of consultations and surveys over the years- and of course there'll be a full consultation on this trial. Not sure why the Council would pay attention to a petition when they are setting up their own feedback mechanisms for all to complete.
PG Celt posted a reply
#5614
08 Oct 2020 06:59
Despite the LTN the roads are not completely closed to traffic so you are still unable to allow children to roam and play without zero concern. Especially with the increasing volume of delivery drivers who drive large vans and take pleasure in driving at speed. Is the expectation that the roads of the lakes estate become a playground? How would residents feel about that? It will always be more appropriate to travel to travel to grovelands / Broomfield which despite perhaps a quieter journey to get there, you are greeted with incredibly busy roads to cross at Bourne hill and aldermans hill.

An issue that is now increasingly apparent is people parking on the roads above the lakes estate e.g St. George’s road, or even across the planters on the fox lane side and then walking to where they need within the LTN. This is not only removing parking for residents of those roads but also blocking traffic to cyclists who have to mount the pavement to enter the LTN. The turn into Conway Rd from fox lane is particularly tight and despite the increase in scoots / bikes, the danger has increased with it.

I also feel for local businesses, this has to have hurt trade. Are there any measures in place to measure it? Traffic creates a stressful environment and does not make strolling up and down the high street an enjoyable experience. That’s aside from what must be increased pollution.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5615
08 Oct 2020 07:53
“This forum is meant for sensible discussion and reasoned argument. This isn't a helpful contribution. There are no arguments why you think the scheme is bad, just that people "hate it", which is not true for everyone and not a reason for abandoning the scheme.

Yes, a lot of people do hate it. A lot of other people love it, including some who don't live in the area. Many others are happy to see how it works out before deciding what they think.”

I have already given my reasons on the forum for why the scheme is so awful.

There is actually very little evidence as far as I can see, besides 2 or 3 posters on here, that this scheme is popular. All I see and hear is people that have had enough of it.

And the persistent children playing in the street quotes are just nonsense. As somebody else pointed out, there is still some traffic including the many motorcycles being pushed over the Fox Lane railway bridge before speeding off.

Let somebody start a petition to keep the scheme, then we’ll see just how loved it is. Opinion polls are biased unless they are a open to anybody to answer and are widely advertised.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5616
08 Oct 2020 08:31
Adrian Day wrote:

I walk the LTN every day and there's a discernible increase in people walking, cycling and using scooters. In particular cycling to St Monica's has increased - so much that a new bike shed is needed. Result: healthier, more active children, less obesity and pollution. Neighbours can chat in the street without noisy rat runners drowning them out.- and several thousand people are enjoying less pollution, a better night's sleep and safer streets. And everyone can reach their home or place of work by vehicle.


So, cycling to St. Monica's has increased, and "noisy rat runners" have decreased/disappeared? Hmmmm...

Logical conclusion: The "noisy rat runners" are now riding bicycles to St Monica's.
Julia Mountain posted a reply
#5617
08 Oct 2020 08:58
I've had to change my route from Conway Road to Enfield Town since the LTN was introduced, going via Aldermans Hill and Green Lanes instead of through the back roads. I estimated it would add 90 seconds to my commute and this is about right. Journey time this morning was 20 minutes; 08.29 - 08.49. Not bad in the rainy rush hour.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5618
08 Oct 2020 09:04
As I mentioned above, I doubt anyone is going to start a petition just to 'prove' how many supporters there are for a trial that already exists (though plenty of surveys show at national and London level a majority support measures to encourage sustainable travel), instead they'll spend their time feeding back on the official consultation platform. I can say in my street there is a clear majority of support. And of course the removal of high traffic neighbourhoods and encouragement of sustainable travel is the policy of our elected representatives at national (Tory), regional (Labour) and local (Labour) level. And of course there is 'still some traffic' - it's a principle of ltns that every home can be reached by a vehicle, but the traffic volumes have fallen dramatically due to the absence of through traffic (a few people pushing motorcycles over the bridge is not a problem in my eyes).
John Phillips posted a reply
#5619
08 Oct 2020 09:10
Yesterday I had to rush to from Lakeside Rd to Winchmore Hill which now means I have to go via Aldermans Hill and the high street. It was 4.15 so the traffic was backed up to Grovelands Rd/Baskervilles. I set my stopwatch. I cleared the lights at The Triangle 2mins and 16 secs later. So no problem really!
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5620
08 Oct 2020 23:57
Worth a read. https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/let-s-all-welcome-lowtraffic-neighbourhoods-a4566341.html
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5621
09 Oct 2020 09:36
Karl Brown wrote:

Several personal impact issues being raised where the LTN trial can sensibly assess the breadth and depth of such problems as well as its benefits. But looking broader I’ve previously mentioned the policy move away from car priority. Standing outside the British Library on the Euston Road at the w/e this move confronted me: previously a three lane road and always chocca with traffic in both directions it has changed dramatically: the pavement obviously remains for travellers choosing to use feet and legs; the inner lane is now for people choosing to travel by bicycle; the middle lane for people choosing to travel by bus or taxi; and the outer lane (only) for people who choose to travel by car. A floating bus stop fills part of the cyclist lane to allow bus passengers to embark / disembark. Like LTN’s, I guess that’s putting money where your policy is.


After causing what has been described as "chaos", tfl commissioner Mr Andy Byford announced yesterday that the Euston Road 'Streestspace' cycle lane is going to be removed:

Euston Road cycle lane removal
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5624
10 Oct 2020 12:21
A nice timely response discovered by Alan Thomas finding the temporary cycle lanes are likely to be closed much earlier than intended. Come east on the same road to where I was referring to and the new floating bus stop with its associated mini zebra allowing pavement waiting pedestrians to embark a lane 2 bus is anything but temporary – I would imagine, but I’m sure someone will keep an eye out. Maybe cars are now to be allowed in lane 2, alongside buses, as well as lane 3 but without significant road works to unpick a lot of concrete and then relay the road surface they’re not going into the cycle lane. Main point however remains, we’re looking at 70+ LTN’s rolling out in London and as many again UK wide under a HMG initiative. The pushback from earlier implementation in such as Walthamstow both in restricting intra-LTN residents and pushing rat running traffic onto boundary roads will have been fully anticipated. The direction of intent and supporting policy is more than clear.
Tamer Sancar posted a reply
#5625
10 Oct 2020 18:18
Not sure anymore will believe you! Yeh no problem for you but major problems for everyone else! Our experience is very different and you can’t fool people into thinking this scheme has bought some benefits and that the traffic is not that bad. it has only bought benefits to only the very few people living in peace and quite on the closed off roads. However it has added EXTRA misery, pollution, traffic, noise and fumes to everyone else who already has busy traffic who now have to take your traffic as well. The main roads where traffic has been diverted to is now mostly gridlocked and there are no bus lanes so buses are also stuck in traffic and makes public transport less appealing. Children's school journeys and the elderly have been particularly hard hit as they rely on buses which have all been gridlocked during rush hour and beyond. There is a lot of opposition to this with very valid reasons and will be a local election issue if not handled properly.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5626
10 Oct 2020 18:29
Agree we need more bus lanes, but there's thousands of people living in the Fox Lane and Bowes LTN areas who are benefitting from safer, quieter and less polluted streets (every street is accessible by vehicle and people walking, cycling and using mobility aids can enter/exit wherever they want). And ltns reduce overall traffic - just takes time for travel behaviours to change. This is worth reading: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tempers-run-high-in-low-traffic-zones-82tqd63gj
Tamer Sancar posted a reply
#5627
10 Oct 2020 19:07
Yes like I said a minority few have benefited from this scheme with quiter streets and less pollution. However this been to the detriment of the very very many more people in the area who are now suffering from MORE dangerous, more noisy and more polluted streets as they have to take on extra traffic from these closed off streets. Driving habits is very unlikely to change as their is no viable alternative for where this traffic can go. Those roads were already busy and are now gridlocked. Just look at the hundreds of school children every morning struggling to travel to school and their lives and well-being just got a whole lot worse. Hardly seems a fit for purpose scheme.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5628
10 Oct 2020 20:20
Driving habits are very likely to change (as they did in Walthamstow LTN) as people realise it's quicker and easier to walk or cycle short journeys - resulting in lower traffic overall. But it will take time for behaviours to change.
Tamer Sancar posted a reply
#5629
10 Oct 2020 21:33
That’s not a representation of the views and experience of the majority of people impacted by that scheme in Walthamstow but rather the narrative pushed by a small minority who benefited from traffic diverted away from their own streets. Driving habits did not change but rather people had no choice but to put up with the extra traffic, longer travelling and more pollution the scheme created.
Steve Coupland posted a reply
#5630
10 Oct 2020 21:39
I am just adding my voice to those who oppose this ridiculous and illogical scheme. The arguments about greater congestion, increasing pollution, longer journey times, added daily stress of travelling, etc, have already been well made. I have not read anything convincing that supports the imposition of this scheme that would be of benefit to the wider community of PG.

I see there are some that suggest we might all start using bikes and public transport that will create some new utopian world. Well, we have a cycle lane that is barely used (waste of money) and anyone using public transport will readily tell you how appalling these services are..... and how expensive! And right now who really wants to be on over crowded buses and trains with the increasing COVID risk.

In my view the council would be better focusing its resources on more important issues such as schools, and social care. If they really want to make our streets better, then perhaps clean them, repair the pavements, and empty the bins ore often.... that would be a good start!
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5631
11 Oct 2020 15:55
So many inaccuracies here - but to address just one of them:
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5632
11 Oct 2020 15:57
It'd be good to see your evidence for your assertions. This paper shows the benefits of the

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

Walthamstow LTN
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5633
11 Oct 2020 16:05
Great to see families enjoying the safe, quiet and less polluted roads of Palmers Green today. We urgently need more low traffic neighbourhoods in the area.





Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5634
11 Oct 2020 17:17
Karl Brown wrote:

A nice timely response discovered by Alan Thomas finding the temporary cycle lanes are likely to be closed much earlier than intended. Come east on the same road to where I was referring to and the new floating bus stop with its associated mini zebra allowing pavement waiting pedestrians to embark a lane 2 bus is anything but temporary – I would imagine, but I’m sure someone will keep an eye out.


Was my response "timely" because the announcement was made on the 8th, and my post on the 9th? The main point was that this was a 'Streetspace' scheme being closed early - due to lower than expected take-up by cyclists and an overly negative knock-on effect for other road users. If there were less than the expected number of cyclists on that temporary 'Streetspace' stretch then it seems very likely that they were not using the lane less than a couple of hundred metres away on the same road outside the British Library. I don't want to be combative, but you seemed to be describing some new utopia while just a few hundred metres away a 'Streetspace' scheme is now being removed because it created "chaos". It doesn't quite add up, does it.

I'm not totally against the principles involved with the LTNs and I am a cyclist, pedestrian and public transport user too, so I 'get it'. But I am also a private car owner, making use of that option when the others are not suitable or available. The insidious demonisation of the private car user is very divisive, and I resent being referred to as a 'Rat Runner' when I am simply travelling between my home and elsewhere, so advocates of the LTNs will have to expect some push back from people who feel they sometimes have no alternative but to make use of personal car ownership. And - with apologies to the International Brigade slogan - 'if you tolerate this, then your gas central heating boiler will be next'... ;-)
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5635
12 Oct 2020 13:28
Less describing a utopia than what on the face of it appears to be the early winding up of a temporary Covid inspired Streetscape measure versus something looking much more permanent. But with HMG intent plus that of the last two London Mayors in their Spatial and Transport strategies, the generational domination of car transport in planning and associated transport investment has ended. Locally we see this in the transport budget of Enfield necessarily fitting in with London’s overarching strategy – call it Mini Holland, residential cells, quieter neighbourhoods or LTN’s, all such now falling under its Healthy Streets umbrella, and it’s been clear for years. That should come as no surprise as I’ve been pointing it out on here, and encouraging input to the long since ended consultations for at least as long. There’s now the opportunity to input to the Fox Lane LTN trial, opening today, I believe. Again, I’d encourage evidenced views to be supplied, this time to our own council. Within all of this here is no demonization of the car driver that I know of – although a minority absolutely deserve it – rather their relative deprioritisation. All the “why’s” are extensively documented in the various plan backing papers. Enfield's own implementation has bounced around a bit with experience and funding availability since the Mini Holland winning bid but the direction of travel is constant.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5639
12 Oct 2020 23:18
I cycled quite a few streets on the Fox Lane neighbourhood this morning - 12th October 20120 - just to get some exercise because I'm well into my eighties and find cycling easier than walking, and thought that the little traffic I came across was calmer than I've been accustomed too. Perhaps it was just chance, or the time I travelled, but it was pleasant feeling that little bit safer. I'll make more reports/comments as time passes.

Let's us hope, as KB commented, '.... that the direction of travel is constant'.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5640
14 Oct 2020 10:47
Adrian Day wrote:

So many inaccuracies here - but to address just one of them:


Thanks for this.

It conclusively proves that an average of circa 20 uses per hour , ie 10 in each direction, has not justified the huge expense and the inconvenience and potential danger caused to everyone else. At what stage does it all get ripped up?
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5645
15 Oct 2020 09:02
I did a survey of the main roads in the area of N21 and N13 this week during the rush hour and beyond to see the impact that the Fox Lane QN was having and also took supporting photos.
I also collated feedback from other residents on what they saw as I think this is the only way to prove one way or the other how the scheme is functioning and whether it is providing any benefits. The report in an edited form has been submitted to the council and I am going to continue monitoring the area when time allows.Here are the top line comments.1. Survey of the area took place between 8.30-10am morning of 13 10 202. Traffic heading towards Green Lanes down Bourne Hill was very congested and stationery much of the time so polluting the area. The tailback went almost as far as Broadwalk.Think a lot of this is due to the closure of Fox Lane at Green Lanes and for many people trying to get to the A406 at the Gt Cambridge Roundabout this is causing major issues.3. In the opposite direction the tailback from Southgate went up to Greenway.In both instances a mixture of private and business vehicles4. Asked bin lorry crew what they thought and they said their journey was delayed by 15-30 mins. Since they are working shifts this is affecting their working day.5. Meadway and surrounding roads have no signage indicating cameras until you are actually at the barriers. This seems deliberate. Signage equally bad at Cannon Hill.6. Saw about 20 vehicles go through thereby picking up penalty notices.7. Saw NHS ambulance reversing to avoid a PCN even though they are exempt.8. Spoke to local resident who said people are very divided over the scheme. It does make the area quieter but is causing a lot of travel issues for some people and those cars that go through the barriers are now going even faster than before.He thought they might install ANPR gates that recognise residents number plates but no use for visitors or carers or tradespeople.Also said that one thing Enfield did not consider is that Southgate is a major transport hub. Buses, trains etc. It is being choked. He advocated removing all parking on the high street but that is not the main issue.This has not been thought through. 9. Most roads were clear by 10am.Later on found out there had been similar congestion on Winchmore Hill Road heading to Southgate and the same happens in reverse in the evening rush hour.Another unintended consequence is traffic heading through Eversley Park now to avoid WHR past two schools. Again I also now have photos of this and school buses being delayed on Bourne HillOne thing is obvious and that is Enfield do not care about traffic flow in the rush hour. The only road I didn't visit was Aldermans Hill which has been covered extensively already.
Tom Le Bas posted a reply
#5646
15 Oct 2020 11:08
Just wanted to add my opposition to this ridiculous scheme. The main problem I have with it is the fact that the (mostly wealthy) people living on the leafy Lakes estate are benefitting from quieter, less polluted streets while the rest of us have to suffer from noisier, more polluted streets. My formerly quiet, residential street has seen a large rise in traffic as cars cut through from Green Lanes to Hedge Lane to avoid traffic jams. Just to add - I cycle a lot and rarely drive, and I can still see how incredibly unfair this scheme is.
Guy Harrowell posted a reply
#5648
15 Oct 2020 15:00
I live in the Fox Lane LTN. It is the most outrageously pompous scheme going. To suggest it's for the children is ridiculous. There are 2 huge parks easily accessible either side of Fox Lane. Although one of them is being destroyed by the friends of Broomfield park.

I am not a rat! if I want to travel from where i live in Conway road to Winchmore Hill, the most direct route was down broad walk, it isn't a cut through if it is the most direct route. I now have to sit on Aldermans Hill and then wait at The Triangle. With the introduction of the cycle lanes along Green Lanes, these roads are now congested and snarled up. What normally took me 5 minutes now takes 23 minutes!!!

Yes, the air maybe cleaner ON YOUR street but what about all the residents in Aldermans Hill, The Bourne N14, High Street N14. Cars are now sitting in congestion, polluting whilst stationary.

It's all well and good saying that these journeys aren't necessary, but the figures have been deliberately designed to mislead you. The council will have you believe that during March to July, people favoured cycling and walking. Agreed, we were in full lockdown, advised not to use public transport and there were no cars on the road as mot of the country were on furlough.

People can't go about there daily business without now having to factor in travel time to get passed Palmers Green.

If this was about the children (other chap begging for an answer), take away their phones, take them to the park show them how to clime a tree. Don't take them on their e-scooters to the park, there is no exercise in that.

These LTN's have to go! I'm a busy resident, not a rat.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5649
16 Oct 2020 08:48
I don't think this is an issue to do with wealth. Your journey has the same importance as everybody else. The wealthy need emergency services to attend and bins emptied etc. I don't think it is necessarily about privilege.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5658
20 Oct 2020 13:31
20 less cars on the road per hour
Geraldine Anwar posted a reply
#5659
20 Oct 2020 18:11
Please can you explain how Friends of Broomfield Park are destroying the park?
David Hughes posted a reply
#5660
20 Oct 2020 23:38
As I understand it the Council's intention is to encourage more people to walk, cycle or use public transport rather than a car, which very often is driver-only and therefore, for one person, emitting a substantial amount of exhaust fumes. Which in turn also means that the driver is mopping up a lot of road space compared with a pedestrian, a cyclist or someone using public transport, and meanwhile adding to poor air quality.

As an elderly gentleman(?) I choose cycling: less damage to hips and knees than walking, and doing very, very little damage by way of air quality. In fact when I stopped working we - she and me - promptly sold our car for scrap.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5662
22 Oct 2020 00:17


This is an LTN in Harrow. How can this be legal? Who would want to live behind that knowing that emergency services can’t get through quickly?

This nonsense needs to end
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5663
22 Oct 2020 08:37


Worth a read

https://theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5664
22 Oct 2020 08:39
Not sure how that's relevant to Palmers Green but looks great - quiet streets safe for cycling and walking. Emergency services consulted on all LTN designs of course.
John Hazelwood posted a reply
#5665
22 Oct 2020 11:32


Cyclists trapped in by the low traffic neighbourhood, the surrounding roads too busy for them to go beyond the planters :(
Either that or they called every cyclist in enfield to pose for this propaganda photograph, I mean what have they all stopped there for?
Clearly we can see its about 2 people supporting this and everyone else is against it because it only benefits a minority.
Im seeing lots of STOP the LTN posters in windows in the lakes estates now. The people must get what they want not what a few people want.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5666
22 Oct 2020 11:46
Not one 'Stop the LTN' poster in my street of 150 households
John Hazelwood posted a reply
#5667
22 Oct 2020 12:17
They are everywhere, everyone is talking about them, but of course you "dont see them" because it doesnt suit your narrative.
"no, they arent there, i cant see them, they burn my eyes, they arent there!"
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5668
22 Oct 2020 12:31
My memory recalled recently reading of 70+ LTN’s in London (and pretty much the same again country wide), or an awful lot of nonsense to end if Richard Carlowes wish was to come true. However I now read of 160 LTN’s in London with Phase 2 money from the government still anticipated to bring a whole lot more. Love them or hate them, the underlying positions both political parties have accepted in developing transport policy does suggest a get-used-to-them may be the more likely requirement.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5669
22 Oct 2020 18:01
I think we must be referring to different places, John Hazlewood. A friend and myself walked most of the streets within the Fox Lane low traffic neighbourhood (N13 and N14) this afternoon. Many streets with no anti-ltn posters (happy to walk with you up my street of over 100 households and you can point out the anti posters) , a handful on a few streets in the north - in total less than 100 out of around 3000 households. The only concentration was in the windows of businesses in Cannon Hill. This week's YouGov survey showed that nationally only 8% of population are strongly against ltns, 8% tend to be against, 27% are neutral or don't know, 31% tend to be for and 26% strongly for them. In short 57% support, 16% against and 27% neutral/ dont know. No reason to think that's different in Enfield.
Julia Mountain posted a reply
#5670
23 Oct 2020 01:44
Hello Guy, we don't know each other but we both live on Conway Road. I have been commuting to work in Enfield Town by car since March, going via the back roads such as Broad Walk. I estimated that the LTN would add 90 seconds to my journey as I now go via Aldermans Hill and the Green Lanes. But I don't think it has made much difference. The journey takes 16-20 minutes, including queuing on Aldermans Hill and London Road by the Dugdale. I recognise that some of us are more inconvenienced than others, but when some local people make wild exaggerations on social media about constant gridlock on the roads, they do not add anything positive to the debate. BTW, are you on the Conway Road WhatsApp group yet? They are planning socially distanced Halloween doorstep drinks on 30th October.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5671
23 Oct 2020 09:49
My wife was called for her flu jab at the surgery near the Tesco service station in Winchmore Hill. So yesterday we walked the slightly longer, but quieter, Woodland Way route and made the journey from Old Park Road in 19 minutes. That looks good vs an apparent 23 minutes by car. I suggested to her that on bike it was probably about 5 minutes, but there were no takers. Coffee followed at the cannibalised parking spaces on Winchmore Hill Green on the way back – a splendid use of space for people, lots of them, every time I’ve been there.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5672
23 Oct 2020 09:58
Julia Mountain wrote:

I have been commuting to work in Enfield Town by car since March, going via the back roads such as Broad Walk. I estimated that the LTN would add 90 seconds to my journey as I now go via Aldermans Hill and the Green Lanes. But I don't think it has made much difference. The journey takes 16-20 minutes, including queuing on Aldermans Hill and London Road by the Dugdale. I recognise that some of us are more inconvenienced than others, but when some local people make wild exaggerations on social media about constant gridlock on the roads, they do not add anything positive to the debate.


No offence intended, but the above makes absolutely no rational sense to me. How could such a diversion have been 'estimated' to add '90 seconds' to that journey? It would simply not be possible. It takes you - literally! - miles out of your way, and puts you onto roads where you are moving further away from your final destination before you can get back on track, it puts you onto roads where you simply do not need to be, and at pinch points (EG The Triangle and Palmers Green high street) where your presence is adding to congestion, pollution and danger.

But more to the point, the people who support these schemes don't want you to be using your car to commute from Conway Road to Enfield! They want you to walk, cycle, take public transport or any combination thereof. Perhaps it is worth considering how long *that* diversion will add to your journeys, and what its impact on your free movement will be? Fox Lane LTN is the thin end of the wedge.
Colin Younger posted a reply
#5673
23 Oct 2020 15:36
Stepping back from the to and fro which has dominated the pages of PGC, I wonder whether an issue uncovered by a Freedom of Information request on the Warwick/Bowes Road LTN was given considertion when the Fox Lane LTN was being planned.

That is the potential effects on crime raised by the Designing Out Crime Office at Bowes Road Police Station.
I attacha slightly edited version of their response (removing some elements nt directly relevant).

File Attachment:

File Name: 20201023De...LTN.docx
File Size:15 KB
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5675
24 Oct 2020 09:57
Colin seems to have dug out data which gets to the heart of a matter frequently promoted by David Hughes many years back - getting more bodies in public spaces should (does) reduce ASB / crime. In Fox Lane LTN terms that becomes is that position better met by thousands of passing vehicles moving at circa 30mph or a growth in active travellers otherwise discouraged by that same traffic? Now we have such a petri dish trail to help answer it, although the likes of the Leigh Hunt Drive estate area may already provide powerful guidance. Obviously the hundreds of daily crimes of speeding have already been heavily mitigated by the LTN trial. I would also expect serious impact on the dial-a-drug trade where it’s long been evident that drugs (or at least small packages) were being delivered by passing vehicles, either to another vehicle or to a pedestrian on our streets. On the other hand any reduction or even loss of the recycling / reuse “white van trade” in collecting unwanted items from front drive areas on a drive past would be a negative. In 30+ years I’ve yet to experience or hear of a local scooter based theft and long may that continue. Certainly this last four weeks or so is far and away the longest period on our comprehensive street whats app that’s been in situ for a lot of years when there has been no mention of a crime or otherwise suspicious behaviour on the street. I’m less concerned about planters being a ASB bench or store for drugs / weapons here in Fox Lane as the many nearby low walls and extensive gardens already provide such opportunity were it sought. Planters and prostitution? I’ll leave that to a specialist. All this real life data is going to be fascinating and appears to go well beyond the simple traffic question.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5676
24 Oct 2020 12:55
Colin asks a good question - and one that is ripe for a 'before and after' study of the crime figures (although I gather burglaries have been down since April due to lockdown, then more people working from home). Speeding, careless and dangerous driving visibly down on all streets in the LTN of course. It's often pointed out fear of crime is more pernicious than than the actual crime - personally I feel my street is safer as there's more people walking, cycling and using mobility aids - and it's much easier to hear anything untoward in the street. It'll be interesting to see the figures in a few months.
Tony Maddox posted a reply
#5677
24 Oct 2020 15:09
Julia Mountain wrote: "I have been commuting to work in Enfield Town by car since March, going via the back roads such as Broad Walk. I estimated that the LTN would add 90 seconds to my journey as I now go via Aldermans Hill and the Green Lanes. But I don't think it has made much difference."

Alan Thomas wrote: "It takes you - literally! - miles out of your way, and puts you onto roads where you are moving further away from your final destination before you can get back on track, it puts you onto roads where you simply do not need to be, and at pinch points (EG The Triangle and Palmers Green high street) where your presence is adding to congestion, pollution and danger....Fox Lane LTN is the thin end of the wedge."

I might have thought this and I don't know where Julia lives, obviously, but taking the midpoint of Conway Rd as a starting point, her new commute is 0.51km or 0.32 miles longer (Ordnance Survey online). If she lives at the Ulleswater Rd end, it is shorter. Her old commute would also have involved pinch points (Winchmore Hill Green etc.) which are uncontrolled by traffic lights and probably more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians alike.

In terms of wedges, Alan is correct in that it is the stated policy of national, regional and local governments to reduce car mileage (largely as a public health measure) and, over the coming years, there will be increasing regulatory and financial disincentives to drive for short journeys and at particular times of the day. One of the reasons for that is that we are at the thick end of this wedge:

and another two years will see the traffic on unclassified roads in London at the same volume as "A" roads. All this has happened in the last 10 years, partly due to satnav, partly because the cost of driving has been static (ish). The increased mileage is also greater than the increase in either number of cars or population, so we have all been driving more.
If we do nothing, then this will eventually self-limit due to congestion and traffic volume and people will be forced to find other methods of transport in any case. It just seems more sensible for us all to consider ways we could drive less now and thus avoid the attendant (well-known) problems of more years of increasing traffic.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5678
24 Oct 2020 16:30
These days I often think it's a shame that I'm getting old, not because my end of life is getting closer, but because I don't have the energy/ability to source information and present it as logically an swiftly as I used to.

Furthermore I'm a little bewildered by the fact that as a society very, very much younger people continue to reach destinations, perhaps especially work destination, in driver-only vehicles when in London there are usually perfectly good alternatives like buses and trains, backed by walking or cycling. Cars are wonderfully adaptable, but given that even now they emit dangerous emissions which are especially hard on children, you would think everyone would think twice about whether they really need to use a car when there are alternatives.

Perhaps someone who does reach work be car, but could walk, cycle or use public transport, would like to make a case.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5680
27 Oct 2020 09:14
The high traffic neighbourhood gang commit more vandalism in the community. This is a new trick - painting out camera warning signs on Meadway so drivers proceed and get fined. And then the same people will protest at the high level of fines and poor signage. @FoxLaneLTN
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5681
27 Oct 2020 11:50
However, there is good news - low traffic neighbourhoods encourage people to walk and cycle more. This wouldn't have happened in Fox Lane 3 months ago (shot taken yesterday). We need to end high traffic neighbourhoods .
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5682
27 Oct 2020 18:04
Adrian Day wrote:

The high traffic neighbourhood gang commit more vandalism in the community. This is a new trick - painting out camera warning signs on Meadway so drivers proceed and get fined. And then the same people will protest at the high level of fines and poor signage. @FoxLaneLTN


Who exactly are "The high traffic neighbourhood gang"? If you know who the perpetrators of this criminal activity are, then you have a duty to report it to the Police along with your evidence.

The people who did this do not represent anyone but themselves, so please do not fall into the trap of tarring all of those who are sceptical of some aspects - or all - of the Fox Lane LTN with the same brush. Thank you.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5683
27 Oct 2020 22:15
No idea who they are, hence the made up moniker (I'd go straight to police if I knew) - but it would be nice if some of the more active campaigners against the low traffic neighbourhood condemned the constant vandalism to signs , planters and cameras. It may help reduce the amount of crime.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5684
28 Oct 2020 08:55
When we're looking for the cause of congestion on the roads, funnily enough it's 'more traffic', not cycle lanes or low traffic neighbourhoods. Indeed the latter reduce traffic by encouraging people to walk and cycle short distances. Looking at the graph we need many more low traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes in Enfield to encourage modal change and at some point car owners (of which I am one) will need to cover something approaching the full cost of driving. of the externalities.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5685
28 Oct 2020 15:26
One crucial factor Adrian hasn’t included in his presentation of data is that throughout the period analysed Enfield has remained the same size. That same size has also been required to absorb a substantial increase in population and linked needs. Same size absorbing more stuff means less space for each unit of stuff, or congestion in this case. Ten years or so back the main public debate topic in local forums was not being able to park. (More cars, same size of Enfield, as well as it seems more trips seeking end of trip parking space wherever that might be, meant less space for each car and more opportunities to get angry.) I would say it’s now been accepted that parking is tough but it’s not causing anger at anything like the same scale as then. I’m tempted to suggested, just as with parking, time will see understanding and acceptance of required transport change issues, such as the necessary priority of moving to active means.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5688
28 Oct 2020 16:52
And of course the population is planned to increase by a fair bit.
John Phillips posted a reply
#5693
29 Oct 2020 18:31
John Hazelwood wrote:



Cyclists trapped in by the low traffic neighbourhood, the surrounding roads too busy for them to go beyond the planters :(
Either that or they called every cyclist in enfield to pose for this propaganda photograph, I mean what have they all stopped there for?
Clearly we can see its about 2 people supporting this and everyone else is against it because it only benefits a minority.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I actually took this photo. It shows the inaugural meeting of the Wobbly Cyclists Group which aims to give confidence to youngsters, the disabled and oldies (like me!) on our newly quiet roads. It was a great success.
Sorry, John, if the facts don't fit your narrative.

Adrian Day posted a reply
#5694
31 Oct 2020 13:49
Excellent piece in the FT:'

'In cities like London, some residents are also angry that roads have been blocked off by flower planters — to create “low traffic neighbourhoods” that put pedestrians and cyclists ahead of car-users. The short answer is: tough. A revolution requires a few barricades. Our cities need more bikes and fewer cars and taxis (or whatever Uber’s legal department calls its vehicles now).'


https://www.ft.com/content/2eb872a9-8afd-4896-bf36-ed7227c0818a?sharetype=blocked
David Hughes posted a reply
#5695
31 Oct 2020 17:16
To follow up on Adrian Day's contribution earlier today I'd say that even the national Government will be happy to hear of more walking and cycling. Cars need a lot of London's scarce space whilst current engines and tyres create the poor air quality which is particularly bad news for children. The more flower planters and trees the better.
Tom Smith posted a reply
#5696
31 Oct 2020 20:44
Why don’t you just move to the countryside. It's only a few miles on the other side of the M25. There are hardly any cars but plenty of natural planters and trees there.

I myself don’t drive or have a car, I walk where I can and use public transport. It is very difficult without a car. I am also a realist and can see how average people cope with the daily challenges of living in London, and why they need a car for work, families etc. The growth in cars in London is not due to pleasure driving but mainly due to both population and economic growth. Miles travelled per car has not gone up over the years but in fact decreasing. The increase in total miles driven on all vehicles is increasing in direct correlation with London’s population growth. The growth in traffic is mainly attributed to commercial vehicles (vans and lorries) reflecting London’s economy growth and popularity of home deliveries etc etc. As a comparison there are parts of the UK where the population and economy have not grown and the traffic volumes have also been at similar levels. There is a direct correlation between them.

There is a viable and sustainable solution to traffic problems, which does not involve planters and angering the local community. Investment of money in infrastructure and technologies linked to smarter cities concepts are a tested and proven example. Also, in just a few years Ultra Low Emission Electric Vehicles (ULEVs), along with expanding 20mph speed limits across London will revolutionise travel, the environment and safety for ALL. The ULEVs with almost zero pollution from their dynamo engines will reduce pollution as they replace older combustion engines. This environmental benefit is great news for all in the community, but potentially bad news for others like maybe yourself. A few people on this forum are banging on about the useless and universally failed Low Traffic Schemes like LTN’s. Unlike ULEVs, the LTN schemes have not been proven to work and do not benefit the wider community, economy or environment. They are instead been used as an effective back-door scheme for a minority of residents in wealthy streets to bypass planning and consultation rules to get their very own private roads at the expense of the wider community. In effect we are creating exclusive private NIMBY enclaves like the Lakes estate. It’s a scheme that benefits very few people (and probably their house values) but disadvantages many many more people in surrounding roads with extra pollution, noise and traffic that they don’t want. Thinly veiled insults are given to the surrounding community by falsely claiming “traffic will evaporate” or “habits will change” which people know are not true, and are wearing thin. It’s very divisive as communities do not like anything that is unfair or unjust and solely introduced for the benefit of just a few people.

We are getting bored and tired of this divisive LTN scheme which is Unproven and most definitely Unfair and Unjust. It’s had its day in the sun and we need to move on to something else that actually will work….
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5700
31 Oct 2020 21:57
I reckon it's pretty divisive asking your neighbours to move away, but anyway, the traffic problem is just as bad, if not worse, outside the M25 - with roads clogged with vehicles and dreadful walking and cycling infrastructure (and very poor public transport). Of course low traffic neighbourhoods are for all - in fact many Council estates are low traffic neighbourhoods - don't forget it's the poorest who don't have a car. Finally, the only solution to traffic problems is less traffic - and low traffic neighbourhoods encourage people to switch modes for short journeys.
Tom Smith posted a reply
#5702
31 Oct 2020 22:05
Thats the theory but it doesn't work. It only works to create private and car free roads fo a few residence and pass the traffic onto poorer neighbours on surrounding roads. Its a great scheme fo some and a disaster for many. Its Unfair, Unproven and Unpopular. To prove the point over 5,000 people in this community have signed a petition against the LTN scheme and only 240 or so for the scheme. That gives it a 95% rejection rate. You are not going to claim that 95% of the community who do not want this scheme do not care about the environment or do not understand. 95% of this community cannot see the benefits of this scheme because there is none for the vast majority of people as they see it as unfair and Unjust and are rightly angered by it.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5704
31 Oct 2020 22:24
Please can you share the evidence showing ltns don't work (you can find Rachel Aldred's work showing they do earlier in this thread)? I'm an avid supporter of ltns and I wouldn't waste my time signing a petition. Last week's YouGov survey (which I trust more than a random petition) found only 16% of population oppose ltns - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular

We need many more ltns in Enfield so all can benefit from not living in a high traffic neighbourhood.
Tom Smith posted a reply
#5706
31 Oct 2020 22:30
LB Wandsworth, LB Lewisham and LB Redbridge all cancelled their LTN schemes within a short period after starting. LB Ealing and LB Hackney are hanging by a thread and may be cancelled soon. The local petitions across all the UK for and against the scheme cannot be dismissed as it is a more accurate reflection of the community where we live and we can see and experience for ourselves when signing the petition for or against the scheme. 95% of the community do not agree with the Fox lane / Lakes estate LTN and are against it. That is pretty compelling rejection of the scheme in anyones books. The LTN scheme is Unproven, Unjust, Unfair and very very Unpopular in this community.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5709
01 Nov 2020 10:14
It’s worth correcting the many references to the LTN falling into a trap of referring to it as the Lakes Estate. There are at least four relatively distinct community areas within the Fox Lane LTN:
• The Leigh Hunt Drive estate – a LTN from inception
• Meadway (Conservation Area) Estate - easiest thought of as the Southgate Circus by-pass
• Lakes (Conservation Area) Estate – easiest thought of as the Green Lanes by-pass
• A set of east / west roads spanning the centre and focused on The Mall / Selbourne and Amberley / St Georges – taken as a major east / west through route.
With the exception of the former, many have argued that these communities have suffered by their position as major thorough routes.
In response to Tom Smiths postings to help clarify:
• What is the community you refer to as suffering / being killed? (#5703)
• What is the issue you say is not solved by the LTN? (#5708)
• What does the 95% rejection rate refer to? (#5703)
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5710
01 Nov 2020 19:17
How are you defining the 'community'? The 5000 or so people signing the petition are from various parts of Enfield. The population of Enfield is 338,000 - even excluding children, 5000 is a tiny percentage of the total.
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5711
02 Nov 2020 00:59
Hi Adrian. Can I ask where you got your statistics and graph in post #5684 ? Only I have downloaded below from the relevant gov.uk site, which you can check, some differing statistics. I haven't presented them in graphic form but as you can see they would show very little in the way of an upward curve.

Download from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tra89-traffic-by-local-authority

Measure Million Vehicle Kilometres

Traffic Flow- Cars
Local Authority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Barnet 1,368 1,339 1,375 1,303 1,325 1,325 1,327 1,316 1,271 1,307 1,305
Enfield 1,181 1,207 1,262 1,158 1,213 1,159 1,204 1,237 1,216 1,212 1,219

Traffic Flow-All Vehicles
Local Authority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Barnet 1,688 1,639 1,673 1,587 1,630 1,648 1,666 1,657 1,629 1,679 1,681
Enfield 1,543 1,553 1,582 1,479 1,561 1,512 1,577 1,640 1,639 1,644 1,665

These are in million kilometres rather than miles but obviously that's not going to affect the curve. I'm not necessarily suggesting yours are wrong as different websites do suggest different things.
Not wishing to trade statistics on Child deaths on the road, as a father of two I cannot comprehend what it would be like to be on the end of such a statistic, but in your post relating to child deaths on the road #5565 the figures you quoted were for the whole of the UK and included children involved in accidents as passengers in cars and coaches. For London, in the last year figures were confirmed 2018, there was not a single child death in Greater London as a result of a motor accident. (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2018.pdf) and fatalities and serious injuries were down 37% on the 2005-2009 baseline.
This relative success, (the road casualty figures have been falling for many years now) was originally down to the social stigmatising of drink driving but more recently is largely down to safer vehicles and a successful general reduction in speed. I would argue that of the issues around the Fox Lane LTN, (Noise, Pollution and Speed), speed is the only one of consequence.
If you choose to live in London, one of the biggest cities in the world, I'm afraid you should expect some traffic noise. If night time noise is a real issue then I personally would not be against night time closure.
I live on Bourne Hill. I'm sure I suffer more noise than anyone on the Lakes Estate along with vibration from larger vehicles which don't enter the estate. But I chose to live here.
Pollution is not going to be solved by closing these roads only moving it to the outskirting roads where it will be more of a problem as idling and slower speeds creates more and it is not dispersed by the moving traffic. Long term, if there is a real reduction in traffic as a result of these schemes you might argue that this will lead to a reduction overall of pollution, however there is no evidence that this happens. Your assertion that after a period of time things settle down and traffic magically disappears around LTNs is totally contradicted by your graph showing traffic miles are increasing (unless this increase is due to less cars travelling further to get round the LTNs).
Speed and the danger associated with it is an issue so we should be looking at ways of affecting this, not simply closing the roads to all traffic because a few idiots wont slow down.
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5712
02 Nov 2020 01:03
Apologies, my nice neat table got got somewhat adjusted in proportions as it got sent but I think you can work the figures out to get the gist of it.
Peter Payne posted a reply
#5713
02 Nov 2020 01:24
Hi Tom Smith
Thanks for your posts. You mentioned in #5702 a petition. Despite living on Bourne Hill I haven't heard of this petition. Perhaps you could post details on this forum of how or where I could sign it ? Is it on-line ?
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5714
02 Nov 2020 10:28
Peter Payne wrote:

Hi Tom Smith
Thanks for your posts. You mentioned in #5702 a petition. Despite living on Bourne Hill I haven't heard of this petition. Perhaps you could post details on this forum of how or where I could sign it ? Is it on-line ?


https://www.change.org/p/london-borough-of-enfield-objection-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-and-immediate-opening-of-roads-to-traffic
Tom Smith posted a reply
#5715
02 Nov 2020 19:59
Peter Payne - You make some excellent and very well measured points for good community debate, but I think it might be wasted on here.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5716
03 Nov 2020 12:00
The data is from Cllr John Burke, Environment Lead in Hackney who accessed TfL data for every Borough. This is not just about the Fox Lane LTN though - there's traffic jams all over London (and in many places in the UK) , 25,000 road deaths/serious injuries nationwide, rising obesity, visible climate change and an increase in asthma-related diseases. No one in the country should have to live in a high traffic neighbourhood and we need to reduce the amount of vehicle movements dramatically . There is evidence from Walthamstow that overall pollution and traffic movements dropped following the LTN installed there which is why it's Tory central government and Labour regional and local government policy to introduce more LTNs and as well as make the infrastructure changes needed to encourage people who can to walk and cycle short distances.
David Hughes posted a reply
#5717
03 Nov 2020 22:11
I am struck by the fact that young children get barely a mention in this discussion, yet their lives have been changed enormously by the arrival of the the Car Age. When I was a five year old starting school only one car - it was war time - ever passed us by as we walked to school under the eyes of the 'big girls' who were probably about seven years old. "So what!" you might say, but I think that a half mile walk was a healthier experience - in terms of air quality and exercise - than the common situation now of parents dropping their children off after a journey to school in a parental car which has been dragging in London's poor air quality. Just take a look at Adrian Day's contribution above this one about road deaths, obesity, climate change, and asthma -related diseases. And notice that Government at every level is beginning to watch the situation very seriously with all that means for the growth of walking and cycling by youngsters, and more control of the behaviour of vehicle drivers.

LTN's are the best things since sliced bread.
Sue Beard posted a reply
#5723
05 Nov 2020 19:25
Tom in your post #5702 you mix respondents to a petition which not everyone by any means knows about or can be bothered to engage with, with the whole community . The stats relate to signatories only and-can’t be extrapolated to therefore be 95% of the community The petition started with the aim of opposing the scheme. Of course most people who’ve signed it are against . There has Been a big attempt to whip up anger on this issue and it’s not doing anyone much good.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5724
07 Nov 2020 21:36
Low traffic neighbourhoods bring communities together. Planting bulbs for Spring in the Fox Lane ltn. Dozens of people on bikes, walking and scooting whilst the planting went on.
roger dougall posted a reply
#5725
08 Nov 2020 11:14
It would seem a traffic camera is going up on Conway for emergency vehicles.
I did ask a month ago if they had keys.It would appear they didn't. Funny how £100k in 3 weeks from the other 2 cameras means that now the council believes they are not too expensive to install.

What a misguided place for a camera,it should be nearer the Grovelands/Old Park Road end end but this is just another example of the council and emergency services muddled thinking.Any emergency vehicle trying to access Lakeside ,Grovelands,Old Park Road etc from Ulleswater will have to battle the long tailback on Aldermans Hill ,and it won't help Selbourne at all. In other words lives are still at risk and both the ambulance service and council have not realised that simply closing roads will increase response time. A Conway camera won't help much.Please keep recording videos of stuck emergency vehicles.

On the upside I have bought a second car now and parked it on Fox lane so do not need to sit in the traffic.The kids now both have mopeds and actually seem to be going out more .
The other upside is that,as a resident of the Lakes the air is cleaner ,less noisy ( I hear birds singing in the morning and owls hooting at night) and my house is up in value about £50k ,which is handy since I don't plan on living here for too long now.

At least I have an upside to mitigate the inconvenience of travel.For the surrounding areas they have nothing but more noise and pollution,suffering businesses,longer travel times,and kids having problems getting to school.Thay have gained nothing but more misery.Not one thing ( unless they fell a warm glow thinking of me drinking a quiet coffee in my living room on my gentrified estate)
That is why ultimately this scheme has to be stopped.Barnes isn't going to do it.
We all need to consider voting Labour out at the next locals (May 2021?).What is the local Tory stance on reopening should they win?

TTFN
Lets let democracy decide.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5726
08 Nov 2020 12:58
The Council always said it was a live trial and they'd be ready to make changes as needed. It's great to show the Council listening - and I'd trust the London Ambulance Service to know where changes should be made . Emergency vehicles get stuck in traffic because there is far too much traffic (they get stuck all over London regardless of whether there's an LTN or not) - the good news is LTNs encourage people to switch to other modes for short journeys reducing the total amount of traffic (as the excellent St Monica's case study on this site shows). It's Tory central government policy to encourage and fund LTNs. A similar plea to 'vote out' those supporting Cycle Lanes failed miserably last time - Labour held the Council and the anti cycle lanes/LTN candidate for Parliament lost to supporter Bambos.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5733
13 Nov 2020 08:18
One undoubted conclusion of my reading of LTN and other traffic related posts is the extremely high level of awareness of traffic based pollution. I’d make a guess that no one inputted to the council’s air quality action plan consultation in 2013, and when I stood in for the Principal Pollution Officer in 2015 to present some background, the situation was clearly hitting virgin minds. We’ve come a long way since then via high profile expert communication from the likes of Professor Frank Kelly, and campaigning from eg Doctors against Diesel, The Times newspaper, and more recently Mums for Lungs. So it’s now a pretty much a given; our air is dirty, and reduces our lifespan. It’s an issue much wider then traffic and more specifically more than simply the traffic outside on our own street - traffic itself is one of the core issues, wherever it exists. So I think the focus is better on the “what” rather than the inevitable focus on the “where” when traffic is being addressed.
John Phillips posted a reply
#5735
16 Nov 2020 12:09
I absolutely agree with Karl Brown. There are many pros and cons to the LTN but for me the pollution argument is the clincher. The reduction in traffic related air pollution in Waltham Forest since they introduced their LTNs has been remarkable. And it's not just the LTNs that are improved, the whole area shows a reduction in NO2 and diesel particulates. In the 1960s we had the Clean Air Act to get rid of London Smog. The trouble with modern pollution is that it's invisible so it's not seen as such a problem. But it is. We owe it to our children to act.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5736
16 Nov 2020 22:01
I thought that the CCTV car parked at the end of Fox Lane all day, with its petrol engine running, was doing a grand job in pollution prevention!
PG Celt posted a reply
#5740
17 Nov 2020 14:23
It is bemusing to me that the PGC Weekly Newsletter adopts such a pro stance on this topic each week. Is the role of newsletter, which reaches a wide segment of our community, to provide a balanced view on current matters impacting PG? Perhaps it is not, but when there are clearly so many issues with this trial, presenting such a blissfully unaware positive stance seems irresponsible and can only be further dividing our community inciting anger and frustration amongst those not so keen. I was personally staggered to see the traffic on Bourne Hill this morning, with the queues in each direction meeting adjacent to Broad Walk.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5741
18 Nov 2020 10:20
Several national research studies show that there is significant support for LTNS and other measures that support sustainable travel and reduce traffic. The same surveys show it's a small, noisy minority who are against. The anger and frustration comes mainly from people finding that they can't drive exactly where they want to and journeys taking a bit longer - and I can see initially that can be frustrating but experience elsewhere shows traffic improves. You can see more about LTNS here www.betterstreets.co.uk
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5742
18 Nov 2020 10:23
Sadly a small group of LTNS opponents seem intent on mindless vandalism. The expensive camera has been damaged twice so the Council uses the CCTV car whilst the camera awaits repair. I agree it shouldn't have its engine running - perhaps have a word with them or let the Council know?
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5743
18 Nov 2020 15:17
As London Mayor Johnson was looking ahead 35+ years in his transport approach (London Infrastructure plan 2050), his Transport Strategy was not as distant reaching, but nonetheless aligned, as is the current (2018) version from Mayor Khan and also his oh so nearly agreed new London Plan. So love or hate LTN’s, the transport world we inhabit, especially if you’re sitting inside a car with the heater and radio on, is going to change even more.
Here for instance is from the Transport Strategy vision. (That’s what drives the money, including here in Enfield.):
"Reducing the need to use cars will provide huge benefits for all Londoners. More walking and cycling can make everyone healthier. Older people, the very young, disabled people and those living on lower incomes are most likely to be affected by the problems associated with a car-dependent city, such as poor air quality and road danger. Therefore, reduced car use will make London fairer. Streets will function more efficiently, with less congestion and pollution. Public transport and essential commercial journeys will run more easily and there will be more space for people.
For all of these reasons, this new transport strategy aims to change the way people choose to travel so that, by 2041, 80 per cent of all Londoners’ trips will be made on foot, by cycle or by public transport. This will be a significant change from today, when only 64 per cent of journeys are made by these healthy, efficient and sustainable forms of transport."
That’s less car-miles but more active travelled miles for a fairer city. This direction really has been very extensively evidenced and consulted on. Reversing that is the real challenge if you’re not happy with what is starting to roll out. If not, then it’s breaking embedded habits and mind-sets. What road space will remain needs to be clear for those who really need it.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5744
18 Nov 2020 21:10
Richard Carlowe. You'll be pleased to know it looks as if the the permanent camera has been fixed so should be less need for the camera car. Hopefully people read the very clear signs.
Mike Stone posted a reply
#5747
19 Nov 2020 09:07
Lakeside Road still suffers because the Council has not marked the road clearly as a dead end. The dead-end sign is small and set back from the turn-in, so motorists and delivery drivers still drive all the way up it, only to have to turn and then furiously drive back down again. COUNCILLORS, PLEASE STICK UP A SECOND WARNING SIGN.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5748
19 Nov 2020 10:35
Good point. Not sure how many Councillors see this blog - may be worth feeding back on the Council's Consultation form
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5749
19 Nov 2020 17:31
PGCelt - I'd suggest that it's perfectly reasonable that the editorial policy of an independent community newsletter and website that is set-up, financed, written , edited and distributed by an individual is determined by that individual. Anyone can comment here to provide a balanced view (you can even do it anonymously using a pseudonym) . There are other websites/newsletters in the area that have different editorial views - and of course anyone can set-up their own community side/newsletter if they aren't happy with what they read.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
#5752
22 Nov 2020 20:17
Cycle lanes and LTNs. They won’t last despite what the 3 or 4 persistent defenders of it on here think. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/22/welcome-ghost-cycle-lane-used-just-six-bikes-six-hours/
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5753
22 Nov 2020 22:17
If it was just 3 or 4 'persistent defenders' I might believe you - but luckily both cycle lanes and LTNS are vital elements of central, regional and local government policy for the incumbent parties (and a fair percentage of the opposition in each case). The 10 point sustainability plan launched last week allocated more funding to these measures and indicates that far from not lasting, both cycle lanes and LTNS will become an integral part of transport infrastructure - just as they have in Holland.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#5754
23 Nov 2020 00:37
Richard Carlowe wrote:

Cycle lanes and LTNs. They won’t last despite what the 3 or 4 persistent defenders of it on here think. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/22/welcome-ghost-cycle-lane-used-just-six-bikes-six-hours/


I wouldn't judge anything on the number of people who comment on this website. There is big support for cycle lanes and LTNs here and elsewhere in London. Better Streets for Enfield has 1200 supporters on Facebook.

The results of consultation on a big scheme in Bow were published this week - 70 per cent in favour. Even though Bow is home to many cabbies, who are some of the noisiest of the people trying to stand in the way of progress.

https://talk.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lsbow

Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5755
23 Nov 2020 15:33
Adrian Day wrote:

How are you defining the 'community'? The 5000 or so people signing the petition are from various parts of Enfield. The population of Enfield is 338,000 - even excluding children, 5000 is a tiny percentage of the total.


Interesting to see that 5,000 (I believe the total is now close to 5,500) people having signed a petition against just one of the Enfield LTNs is described as a "tiny percentage" of Enfield's population, whilst the Better Streets For Enfield Facebook group membership of 1,200 is apparently being cited as impressive.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#5756
23 Nov 2020 17:31
Alan Thomas wrote:

The Better Streets For Enfield Facebook group membership of 1,200 is apparently being cited as impressive.


You're distorting what I said. I was replying to a Richard Carlowe's suggestion that there are only three or four people in support, which is absolute rubbish. And several polls carried out by professional pollsters have shown widespread support for LTNs and cycle lanes, and that is simply a fact.

In any case, at this point what we need to be discussing is factual arguments for and against, not speculating about the number of supporters and opponents. Most of those arguments have probably been made already. If the same points keep coming up I'll either be deleting them or locking this discussion. There's been some interesting stuff on both sides of the argument, but it risks boring other visitors to the website and putting them off reading information about other subjects.
Howard Toshman posted a reply
#5762
26 Nov 2020 10:43
The LTN system may well be working well in other areas in London but not in Palmers Green.
I ask anyone to actually take a look at the traffic problems this has caused in the roads surrounding the LTN. As a Southgate resident I have never seen such traffic queues in and around Southgate, it might actually be the last blow for some small businesses,
If you look at the whole area of Southgate and Palmers Green, yes the LTN is quieter for a few hundred but more congested, noisier and more polluted for thousands.
A quieter plan for all not for the few would be fair.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5763
26 Nov 2020 12:13
3500 households spared through traffic that has been displaced from A roads over the past ten years or so and has disrupted their lives. Research shows local small businesses close to an LTN thrive as more people choose to walk or cycle locally (rather than jump in their car and drive elsewhere). Traffic causes traffic problems not low traffic neighbourhoods - it's why we need more in Enfield.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5764
26 Nov 2020 12:16
What are the issues for business owners on Alderman's Hill ? Research shows shops and cafes benefit from local customers because its easier for the people living locally to walk and cycle (and slightly more difficult for them to get in a car and drive elsewhere).
Alan Thomas posted a reply
#5765
26 Nov 2020 13:35
Basil Clarke wrote:

Alan Thomas wrote:

The Better Streets For Enfield Facebook group membership of 1,200 is apparently being cited as impressive.


You're distorting what I said. I was replying to a Richard Carlowe's suggestion that there are only three or four people in support, which is absolute rubbish. And several polls carried out by professional pollsters have shown widespread support for LTNs and cycle lanes, and that is simply a fact.


Hopefully he will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood Richard Carlowe to be referring to support *on this forum*. He may well be wrong, as I think it might even be as high as six...

One thing I have noted through most of the back-and-forth on all this, as well as the PR surrounding the Fox Lane LTN, is that we are seeing LTNs being described as though they are only ONE thing, and as though they have the same (infallibly positive) effects in all areas. I think this is a mistake. I strongly believe that they need to be reviewed, discussed and understood on a case-by-case basis.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5766
27 Nov 2020 14:12
Adrian here is the latest on the situation for the businesses on Aldermans Hill and please bear in mind that their income comes just as much from outside the area as locally. This myth about all business being local doesn't stand up in many places. This survey was carried out November 8th about three weeks into the LTN and has not changed much since then:

• Alderman's Pharmacy - “ As a local pharmacy we deliver , at no cost to the patient , medicines to the housebound and those who may be isolating. The LTN has added at least 30 minutes to delivery times; our drivers are constantly sitting in more traffic. We have also noticed a reduced footfall in the pharmacy as people are discouraged from rising us due to increased traffic in Alderman’s Hill. We are located on Alderman’s Hill and there is a steady stream of mostly stationary traffic pumping out fumes which people working or walking in Alderman’s Hill have to breath in

• Top Discount - “Firstly - the traffic build up gas acted as a major deterrent to any customers wishing to visit us by car or by bus. The traffic is so bad that customers are asking whether the increased pollution levels are having an adverse effect on their health. There are serious concerns over the active response times of emergency services when attempting to to access the vicinity. Our own delivery teams are having to consider risks when entering closed roads by being forced to turn round or reverse on narrow residential roads

• Pomegranate Florist - “we sold up our 4 bedroom house in archway and downsized to palmers green - we leased our shop which has been selling flowers in palmers green for 40yrs. We wanted to live and work locally - we wanted to be able to walk to work and have a n environmentally clean delivery to all our local neighbours. Since having our shop and the sheer cost of renovating the place and bringing it up to today’s standards we were over the moon and things were great. A lot of hard work and obstacles but we managed them ! But what was so perfect has now becoming a nightmare. 59 mins to deliver a coffin spray to a house on Broad Walk - a journey that pre LTN would have taken 5 minutes. In 40 years of being in the flower business I have never delivered flowers to a funeral where the hearse had to wait for the florist. Thank god they were totally understanding and knew why it took so long to get there . It made me so ashamed for not getting the coffin spray to the house on the time arranged. The LTN is killing Alderman’s Hill

• Turnem Clean - Dry Cleaners - “we rely on local trade ; people have stopped coming to us to use our services as it takes more than 30 minutes to get down Alderman’s Hill . The on- going Traffic and congestion is also causing local pedestrians to avoid the area. We pay taxes - why didn’t we get a say in this - it is disastrous

• AMC Cookware - “Customers can not get here - therefore they go elsewhere . 10 minute journeys have become 1 hour. Once a customer finds it is difficult to get to us they don’t make the effort to return and we lose them for ever. Increased air pollution and noise due to congestion on the road - Please help us to keep our business open by scrapping this LTN scheme. Otherwise we will have no option but to close down”

• Bennett Walden - “The scheme is extremely negative, not practical and in all fairness not good for the area and community. I live in Palmers Green . I drop off my girls to a school in N21 and what used to be a 5 minute journey is now 25 . There is excessive pollution now due to stagnant traffic

• Peter Michaels Estates - “Our business is already struggling due to the impact of Corona Virus. Instead of the local authority assisting people and businesses they choose to impose this crazy scheme without consulting local businesses. It is now taking us 3 times as long to get to appointments and people are pulling out of viewings and even agreed purchases . Additionally the pollution levels are through the roof affecting our health.

These businesses would like comments to be anonymous;

• Anonymous - “coming to work we encounter unprecedented levels of traffic. Clients have complained about getting to us and we will lose business as a direct result of the LTN

• Anonymous “ There is a lot more traffic. Patients are turning up late and blaming traffic due to road closures. This is negatively impacting our business

• Anonymous - “As a long standing and established restaurant we are appalled by this ill thought out LTN scheme. Regular clients are questioning whether they can come , especially during the day. Our lunch trade is vital. People simply won’t come if they have to sit in a traffic jam for 30 minutes. It is a complete disaster .

• Anonymous - “ Pollution , pollution, pollution - how the hell is this green?”

• Anonymous - “ We are finding that clients do not want to visit us during the day due to the awful traffic.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5767
27 Nov 2020 17:56
Traffic is now settling down and people are adjusting to the revised layouts and amending their journey times. Behaviour change takes time. It'd be interesting to do a robust survey on actual business income levels before the LTN trial, now and in two months time.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5768
28 Nov 2020 11:14
This latest turn takes me back to “Armageddon” and a press letter claiming the cycle lanes would result in hundreds of shop closures on Green Lanes. My own public response, offering a wager at whatever financial level the author determined that such an event wouldn’t happen, ended it. I also experienced strong pushback with the idea for a zebra crossing on Aldermans Hill joining the busy easternmost gate with the newsagent. Again, shop closures were anticipated. Would anyone suggest removing it now?
So I feel a little weary that a set of comments, taken four days into a national lockdown, based on an inevitably confusing transition period as roads were closed in stages over a three week period, when the north circular closure saw immense traffic routed into Palmers Green, and Aldermans Hill itself was down to one lane for a lengthy period due to emergency water works, is being promoted as the latest retail nightmare.
Of course things are tough; even some of the biggest retail names (experts) in the UK are really up against it, but Aldermans Hill is still seeing negotiations for incoming retailers, even now.
So I’d suggest giving things the air they need to work, or of course not work for this particular segment of stakeholders. It’s a mix, from a very local newsagent to a photography studio with an immense catchment area, and at neither of those extremes would I be expecting LTN related strategic worry.
Instilling fear may indeed be a tactic for those fundamentally opposed to the trial. I would suggest, and ask, that be stopped. Not only retail but there has been much concerning the emergency services. Of course, if anyone believes or experiences an issue, refer it to the council or the emergency services, rapidly. But to build and stoke related fear as a general tactic should be deplored; people have enough to worry about. My own experience of liaising with the ES’s as a key element of the PG Festival preparation is that these groups are professional, efficient and absolutely on the ball with their mission. Help them with identifying any issues by all means but they shouldn’t be a tool of an agenda.

"What used to be a 5 minute journey is now 25" is exactly the active travel opportunity LTN's will hopefully encourage. I'll have a word with Mark next time i pass.
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5769
28 Nov 2020 12:01
The following is a letter I have written to Councillor Ian Barnes regarding a possible compromise to the LTN schemes that would satisfy both sides of what is rapidly becoming a divided community when there was no need for this to happen in the first place and how Hackney Council implemented a scheme that has had little criticism as a result.

Dear Cllr Barnes,

Am writing to you to consider that there are other options to the present running of the Fox Lane and other LTNs in the borough that should be considered when the experimental period comes up for review in a few months time and this might be a way of mitigating the ill feeling that has resulted from the way the scheme has been put into place.

I am a bit surprised at the lack of imagination by the council in the implementation of the LTNs in the borough when Hackney have had several such schemes running for several years with none of the same issues that are causing division in the local community in this borough.

One example, is at London Fields where there is both a school and a low traffic initiative.

This has been brought about by having a camera system which ONLY operates during times of high traffic volumes such as rush hour at the beginning and end of the day.

Their cameras operate from 7-10am and 3-7pm.

Buses and cyclists can use the roads at all times.

In addition they have four other school streets which use number plate recognition so that residents are not fined.

Why is our council (and I stress the word ‘our’) so inflexible?

Since the technology is there to make this workable why are Enfield Council no able to do this.

This is the sort of compromise that would satisfy both sides of the argument about whether such schemes can operate to the benefit of local residents and businesses.

The article below is worth reading as it illustrates how another council was willing to work with the local community and reach a conclusion that satisfied all parties.

https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2020/11/16/banned-turns-london-fields-removed-feedback-low-traffic-scheme/

Kind regards,

Neil Littman
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5770
28 Nov 2020 16:40
Sadly in Old Park Road the stream of traffic started at 6am and continued through the day till 8pm. Middle of the day was a peak for white vans and large lorries.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5771
28 Nov 2020 17:17
We don’t need forecasts of the “rapidly dividing community” type because it just isn’t true. All communities have multiple opinions across them and invariably on a range of matters, strong communities respect them. Traffic effects in this community has been a major topic for the best part of three decades, and it always been a divisive issue. Despite that, the list of community strengths will be well known to those who live and work here, from more street parties than any other part of the UK, London’s choice for Play Street trials – because of the strength and depth of our community bonds and networks we developed and continue to maintain – Enfield’s strongest Friends of Parks group, the boroughs biggest festival celebrating the local community and so forth. Throwing stones inwards may help a niche narrative but I do suggest best you leave this particular theme well alone. Sitting in a car doesn’t build community, nor does driving through one.
There’s a trial, lessons are being learned and will continue to do so as behaviours are inevitably affected, and indeed more nearby LTN’s potentially emerge. There’s a vehicle specifically set up to feed those findings into. We can all do so, and that’s the best way forward for the multitude of stakeholders to use their voices.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5772
28 Nov 2020 19:17
Just launched ! Well worth a look https://foxlaneltn.org/
Neil Littman posted a reply
#5773
30 Nov 2020 23:21
I don't think it is a forecast but a fact that the communities are becoming divided. A simple example is that there are now two websites representing opposing factions regarding the Fox Lane LTN. In other words, an issue in a relatively small area. I received a reply from Cllr Ian Barnes saying that he doesn't follow the ethos of allowing certain vehicles into the area despite the fact that Hackney manage to have an LTN with free entry only allowed outside rush hour morning and evening. The fact is he doesn't want to use the technology which would result in a much more even handed solution. Also the traffic levels have not improved or eased in rush hour. A new video is being posted almost every day by a couple of residents in Palmers Green who are monitoring the situation and local business are affected. I am not just talking about shops but people who have no choice but to drive as part of their jobs. A local heating engineer who worked for me last week said that he won't travel to the Lakes area during rush hour anymore as he cannot see the point of sitting in stationery traffic.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5774
30 Nov 2020 23:32
I'm surprised Ian Barnes said that as every address in every road in the Fox Lane low traffic neighbourhood is accessible by vehicle. We need to reduce the total amount of traffic on the roads so those that must drive are able to do so.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#5778
02 Dec 2020 19:34
The last comment in this thread, by Roger Dougall, has been deleted, as it contains no sensible discussion of the pros and cons, just attacks people without any evidence. This forum is for civilised debate only.
roger dougall posted a reply
#5779
02 Dec 2020 22:35
I think you'll find it contained a sensible alteration to the camera layout to improve response times for emergency vehicles.This would be considered surely to be a pro

It also underlined the sensible suggestion for change to a scheme mentioned by Mr Littman so that we can all benefit under a revised scheme,another pro.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#5783
04 Dec 2020 10:03
Neil, I certainly wouldn’t view two, or more, opposing web sites as a problem and certainly not reflective of a divided / dividing community. Challenge, reflect, improve are fundamentals of good management and ideally democracy. Where I do see division and the cause of that division is where that debate, and often the associated tactics, is not conducive to respectful evidenced based to and fro.
There have been many years of it locally, perhaps peaking with one no-change member standing and swearing in a host church, later publically abusing others, including myself; having groups outside a consulting room haranguing prospective female attendees pre entry; people from outside the community working overtly or covertly to press their own agenda onto that community, often with the result, intended or otherwise, to divide it; and the seemingly never ending poisoning of the well on social media, very often by people who really should know a whole, lot better.
To seek to divide a community and then to argue it is being divided might be the real problem at hand.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5787
07 Dec 2020 09:53
People who drive short distances locally often under-estimate how quick it can be to walk or cycle the same journey (evidenced anecdotally) . These helpful maps show walking and cycling times from the rough centre of the Fox Lane low traffic neighbourhood. Please do download and share with your neighbours on social media. Thanks
Howard Toshman posted a reply
#5791
10 Dec 2020 07:19
I cannot state strongly enough how this LTN has had such a negative impact on the majority of people who live and work in the local area and surrounds.
The petition against the LTN exceeds 5,600 signatures which is far greater than all the groups in favour.
Its killing local business at a time when we as a community should be supporting local business.
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5792
10 Dec 2020 11:27
Lots of support locally and wider afield for LTNs

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

. Full report attached - here's some highlights: A recent survey by Transport for London (TfL)
(August-September 2020) found that 51% of over 1,000
Londoners supported LTNs (both temporary Covid-19
measures and permanent implementation, which would be
subject to further consultations for individual projects),
against 16% who opposed the measure36. Very similar views
(52% vs 19%) were reported by Redfield and Wilton, from a
sample of 2,000 Londoners interviewed in September 2020.
The survey found that support for LTNs is higher amongst
younger Londoners (for example, 57% of 25-34 year olds vs
42% of 55-64 year olds), who have relatively low levels of car
ownership37. As this report was going to press, the
Department for Transport published their own new public
polling finding that over three quarters of people in England
support measures to reduce traffic in their neighbourhoods,
while 65% support reallocation of road space to walking and
cycling (with 24% opposed)38. Protecting the environment in
general is becoming another motivation for supporting these
measures, with more than half of Climate Assembly UK
participants in favour of measures restricting car access to
certain areas, against 22% in opposition.39
Adrian Day posted a reply
#5794
10 Dec 2020 13:20
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2020/12/09/selective-concern/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

A great piece on opposition to sustainable travel planning. I do wonder how relevant the final paragraph is to some of the vehement opposition we see to ending high traffic neighbourhoods in Enfield: 'In all these instances, and doubtless in dozens of others up and down the country, it should be quite clear that the ‘concerns’ were never actually about air quality, or about safety, or about delay to the emergency services, or about the loss of road space – they were at root nothing more than a convenient fig leaf to disguise altogether more selfish demands.'
Steve Coupland posted a reply
#5797
13 Dec 2020 12:56
Howard Toshman makes perhaps the most valid points on this topic.

Once again we have those who think they know best telling us all what is best for us. The overwhelming vast majority of people oppose this and other similar schemes; yet their voice is ignored. I do not need someone to lecture me on climate change (especially when greater congestion is created by the scheme), or about walking more, riding a bike, or using an already over subscribed, incompetent public transport system

There is no increased quality of life in these schemes. They simply add stress and cause angst. There was no big issue that needed addressing in the first place except one created by a handful on middle class NIMBY's.

The whole thing is a joke....and a very bad one at that. Have people in these LTN's given up their cars? I think not. Some people need to get real. You live in a city and the car is here to stay.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#5798
13 Dec 2020 13:34
Steve Coupland wrote:

The overwhelming vast majority of people oppose this and other similar schemes; yet their voice is ignored.


This claim is untrue. Polling has shown over and over again that more people support LTNs and cycle lanes than oppose - in fact, less than 20 per cent oppose. This is official government information based on professional pollling and was restated in a meeting last week by a high ranking Department for Transport offcial.

Anyone continuing to post this completely unsubstantiated false claim will be banned from the forum. It may be that you don't know anyone who supports them, but it is a proven fact that more people do than don't.

That doesn't mean that I don't allow discussion of LTNs on this forum, but they must be factually based discussions of the advantages and disadvantages.

Also, anyone attacking the character of people they disagree with will be banned, as I have made clear on several previous occasions. Steve Coupland has broken this rule in his last post, so he is banned.

I don't spend my time and money on this website so that people can use it to criticise sections of the community and unsupported claims.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
#5799
13 Dec 2020 15:32
This thread is now closed. Supporters and detractors have had plenty of opportunities to give their views, so I'm suspending discussion of the Fox Lane and Bowes LTNs (and of the general principles of LTNs) until the situation changes - eg when the council makes any changes or decides to make the schemes permanent or remove them.

As regards the proposals for Connaught Gardens, it's fine to discuss specifics of the scheme, but the subject of LTNs in general has been done to death. Time will tell whether or not they create problems that are bigger than those that they solve.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed.
Read 178 more comments