Links
Hundreds of LTN residents demand council open up junction (Enfield Dispatch 11 February 2025)
Previous PGC reporting on the Bowes Primary Area quieter neighbourhood
News
Council committee debates quieter neighbourhood residents' petition to allow them to drive past filter point
Share this article
Discuss this article
As a Bowes LTN resident (and car driver and cyclist), living in New Southgate ward, I find the so-called ‘13 Roads’ petition to exempt local residents from ANPR restrictions deeply flawed. The effect, in a nutshell, would be the semi-privatisation of these roads for the exclusive benefit of local car drivers.
This petition fundamentally misunderstands what an LTN is. A properly functioning LTN has two core aspects: in return for safer streets and the removal of through traffic, residents accept the same, publicly accessible, entry/exit points for vehicles as apply to all drivers. And there’s a good reason for that, because LTNs are very much about incentivising the switch from private car to more sustainable travel modes, when possible. The vast majority of LTNs in London, including the Bowes LTN and Fox Lane LTN, adhere to these principles.
In the area of these ‘13 roads’, we are not short of those other modes. Within a short walk are Tube and Overgrounds stations; bus routes connect to several destinations, including Muswell Hill, Brent Cross and Cockfosters, and now there is Superloop. There is new cycle infrastructure, and – very unusually for Enfield – we also have Zipcar and ebike rental. And it should be remembered that 45% of households here do not own cars anyway, so any policy privileging drivers is already ignoring nearly half the local population.
This petition, if its agenda is followed, would swap the genuine low-traffic scheme that now exists for a semi-private motorists’ estate. It would incentivise driving, because residents with private access drive more, not less, increasing congestion on neighbouring roads. It even carries potential risk for any future bids that Enfield might make for ‘healthy streets’ funding from government or TfL.
It would, I feel, be extraordinary if we were to witness a Labour council abandon an LTN in favour of a private enclave of driver privilege. That would simply give ammunition to those critics of LTNs who dismiss them as ‘gated communities’. A wise council will, I hope, see the trap that this petition lays – and avoid it.
This petition fundamentally misunderstands what an LTN is. A properly functioning LTN has two core aspects: in return for safer streets and the removal of through traffic, residents accept the same, publicly accessible, entry/exit points for vehicles as apply to all drivers. And there’s a good reason for that, because LTNs are very much about incentivising the switch from private car to more sustainable travel modes, when possible. The vast majority of LTNs in London, including the Bowes LTN and Fox Lane LTN, adhere to these principles.
In the area of these ‘13 roads’, we are not short of those other modes. Within a short walk are Tube and Overgrounds stations; bus routes connect to several destinations, including Muswell Hill, Brent Cross and Cockfosters, and now there is Superloop. There is new cycle infrastructure, and – very unusually for Enfield – we also have Zipcar and ebike rental. And it should be remembered that 45% of households here do not own cars anyway, so any policy privileging drivers is already ignoring nearly half the local population.
This petition, if its agenda is followed, would swap the genuine low-traffic scheme that now exists for a semi-private motorists’ estate. It would incentivise driving, because residents with private access drive more, not less, increasing congestion on neighbouring roads. It even carries potential risk for any future bids that Enfield might make for ‘healthy streets’ funding from government or TfL.
It would, I feel, be extraordinary if we were to witness a Labour council abandon an LTN in favour of a private enclave of driver privilege. That would simply give ammunition to those critics of LTNs who dismiss them as ‘gated communities’. A wise council will, I hope, see the trap that this petition lays – and avoid it.
They do so understand what an LTN is, and this one and many others have very conspicuously failed to incentivise any switch from private car to more sustainable travel modes: you only have to look at the multiple large cars per household in the Fox Lane LTN to see that. (And if there was any legitimate evidence of such switching, LBE and LBH would be shouting it from the rooftops but the slince is deafening).
And the petition (and many public consultations) make it very clear that residents do not accept that their streets have become any safer, nor have they ever agreed to any supposed suggestion that they - and everyone else - should be denied reasonable access to their own homes in return for such tenuous 'benefit'.
And the petition (and many public consultations) make it very clear that residents do not accept that their streets have become any safer, nor have they ever agreed to any supposed suggestion that they - and everyone else - should be denied reasonable access to their own homes in return for such tenuous 'benefit'.
I welcome Mark's comments, as a fellow resident and car-owner in the Bowes LTN. It is very important that views both for and against a suggested change are heard. Almost by definition, any change affecting some thousands of people will benefit some and disbenefit others. As always the key thing is balancing the benefits and disbenefits. However I would just say that nearly 1700 residents signed the petition, and Andy is one voice.
After some thought I did sign the petition requesting that local residents on the "13 roads" gain access into the LTN area from the south (via the Warwick Road/Maidstone Road camera entrances), in addition to our current sole entrances via Natal Road and Warwick Road (from the North Circular). I have several reasons, some of which improve things for me personally, but others aim to counter some of Andy's points.
First Mark states that "The effect, in a nutshell, would be the semi-privatisation of these roads for the exclusive benefit of local car drivers." This ignores the fact that the LTN already IS a semi-privatised set of roads - and an area which already benefit all residents, not just car owners. None of those existing and real benefits would be lost by the suggested changes.
Second, I shouldn't need to remind anyone what navigating the N Circular is like, but I will. It is a toxic mix of speeding cars and lorries, inadequate junctions and unpredictable massive traffic holdups. Having this as your only way in - and out - of your home streets via car is very unpleasant, sometimes dangerous and always very time-consuming. So, being able to enter and exit via Warwick Road and Maidstone Road will be a huge benefit to 45% of all residents. I consider we have more than paid our dues on this by putting up with the unpleasant status quo for several years.
Third, the only drivers who ever enter the LTN are the residents and a small percentage of delivery drivers. Making the changes would convert it from a semi-private motorists' estate (which it already is) with genuinely poor access for residents into one with half-decent access, without in any way encouraging extra traffic into the LTN or affecting the other residents - in fact it would spread the incoming and outgoing traffic around both north and south access, which would benefit the residents of Warwick Road especially.
Fourth, Mark writes "It would incentivise driving, because residents with private access drive more, not less, increasing congestion on neighbouring roads". I can state with my hand on my heart that after several years of sole access via the N Circular, I have driven many more miles in total through having to enter and leave via the N Circular than I would have done had I access via the south.
Fifth, other means of travel. Cycling is mentioned. I am very definitely all for cycling and hope that one day London will more closely resemble Amsterdam. But opening up the south entrances will not affect anyone's cycling experience. I don't have numbers but I think more people these days choose to walk as well, for health ("steps!") but also because of fuel costs. This will not change - I contend.
We got to the point of having an LTN through a process of public outreach and trial schemes. I don't see anything wrong with modifying the existing Bowes scheme as another trial. If after a trial period there are obvious negative consequences for a large proportion of LTN residents, I'm sure there will be another petition to put things back as they were - and if it clearly hasn't worked, I'll sign that one too.
Geoff
After some thought I did sign the petition requesting that local residents on the "13 roads" gain access into the LTN area from the south (via the Warwick Road/Maidstone Road camera entrances), in addition to our current sole entrances via Natal Road and Warwick Road (from the North Circular). I have several reasons, some of which improve things for me personally, but others aim to counter some of Andy's points.
First Mark states that "The effect, in a nutshell, would be the semi-privatisation of these roads for the exclusive benefit of local car drivers." This ignores the fact that the LTN already IS a semi-privatised set of roads - and an area which already benefit all residents, not just car owners. None of those existing and real benefits would be lost by the suggested changes.
Second, I shouldn't need to remind anyone what navigating the N Circular is like, but I will. It is a toxic mix of speeding cars and lorries, inadequate junctions and unpredictable massive traffic holdups. Having this as your only way in - and out - of your home streets via car is very unpleasant, sometimes dangerous and always very time-consuming. So, being able to enter and exit via Warwick Road and Maidstone Road will be a huge benefit to 45% of all residents. I consider we have more than paid our dues on this by putting up with the unpleasant status quo for several years.
Third, the only drivers who ever enter the LTN are the residents and a small percentage of delivery drivers. Making the changes would convert it from a semi-private motorists' estate (which it already is) with genuinely poor access for residents into one with half-decent access, without in any way encouraging extra traffic into the LTN or affecting the other residents - in fact it would spread the incoming and outgoing traffic around both north and south access, which would benefit the residents of Warwick Road especially.
Fourth, Mark writes "It would incentivise driving, because residents with private access drive more, not less, increasing congestion on neighbouring roads". I can state with my hand on my heart that after several years of sole access via the N Circular, I have driven many more miles in total through having to enter and leave via the N Circular than I would have done had I access via the south.
Fifth, other means of travel. Cycling is mentioned. I am very definitely all for cycling and hope that one day London will more closely resemble Amsterdam. But opening up the south entrances will not affect anyone's cycling experience. I don't have numbers but I think more people these days choose to walk as well, for health ("steps!") but also because of fuel costs. This will not change - I contend.
We got to the point of having an LTN through a process of public outreach and trial schemes. I don't see anything wrong with modifying the existing Bowes scheme as another trial. If after a trial period there are obvious negative consequences for a large proportion of LTN residents, I'm sure there will be another petition to put things back as they were - and if it clearly hasn't worked, I'll sign that one too.
Geoff
Having responded to Mark, a quick response to David Beadle, if I may. I don't know whether David has the benefit of being in an LTN.
David writes "And the petition (and many public consultations) make it very clear that residents do not accept that their streets have become any safer..."
First, the petition had the great benefit of brevity. Its job was not to validate the reasons for the original introduction of the LTN (largely, the abolition of through traffic through residential roads, which has been achieved), but to request a modification to the LTN scheme which would be of further benefit to nearly half the households in the area.
Second, as to safety benefits to residents, speaking as just one resident, our streets have been transformed since the introduction of the LTN. Traffic volumes are way, way down. This is a huge benefit, day in day out, week in week out. Hardly "tenuous".
David perhaps suggests that the introduction of LTNs also reflects a wish, maybe political, on behalf of local councils to incentivise car-drivers to alternative means of travel by curtailment of freedom. I couldn't comment on the intentions of those originating these schemes, but changing habitual established vehicle use is a far more complex goal than simple reduction in through traffic, and one for which there are many levers to pull. I suspect that large-scale slow social movements, for example shifts in intergenerational attitudes, will lead to more positive changes in vehicle use. Today's grown-up drivers may be very disinclined to give up their cars - regardless of "just one more added hassle" - but the next generation of residents may regard car ownership as not very smart, when public transport, cycling and walking are so much healthier and cheaper. Perhaps they just have to wait for us to die off?
David writes "And the petition (and many public consultations) make it very clear that residents do not accept that their streets have become any safer..."
First, the petition had the great benefit of brevity. Its job was not to validate the reasons for the original introduction of the LTN (largely, the abolition of through traffic through residential roads, which has been achieved), but to request a modification to the LTN scheme which would be of further benefit to nearly half the households in the area.
Second, as to safety benefits to residents, speaking as just one resident, our streets have been transformed since the introduction of the LTN. Traffic volumes are way, way down. This is a huge benefit, day in day out, week in week out. Hardly "tenuous".
David perhaps suggests that the introduction of LTNs also reflects a wish, maybe political, on behalf of local councils to incentivise car-drivers to alternative means of travel by curtailment of freedom. I couldn't comment on the intentions of those originating these schemes, but changing habitual established vehicle use is a far more complex goal than simple reduction in through traffic, and one for which there are many levers to pull. I suspect that large-scale slow social movements, for example shifts in intergenerational attitudes, will lead to more positive changes in vehicle use. Today's grown-up drivers may be very disinclined to give up their cars - regardless of "just one more added hassle" - but the next generation of residents may regard car ownership as not very smart, when public transport, cycling and walking are so much healthier and cheaper. Perhaps they just have to wait for us to die off?
In the context of David’s post, it is understandable that long-time activists against low-traffic initiatives would back the petition, for they will have a clear-eyed view of it as a vehicle to challenge an LTN. But – as I have found in conversations -- others will have signed in a more casual way, believing one can ‘add on’ private access like an accessory, since the petition avoids explaining the implications.
Regarding David’s point about cars parked on LTN roads, I might be more worried if there were none, because this would suggest they were all being driven at the time, adding to congestion on our roads. Car usage, rather than ownership, is the bigger issue. Many of my neighbours have drastically reduced their car usage since the LTN came in, as have I. And Geoffrey mentions younger generations, for whom, in a city like ours, low-traffic initiatives are a no-brainer.
Geoffrey makes a number of nuanced points, which make interesting reading, and I thank him for his thoughtfulness and his comments. I’m delighted he has seen his streets transformed for the better in the LTN, as have I. The LTN was a badly needed solution to a long-running problem. But I respectfully disagree on the desirability of this petition. To pick up three issues:
In sum, I disagree with David, agree and disagree with Geoffrey – but it has been an interesting and civilized debate.
[Note by editor: , Due to technical problems, when originally posted this contribution to the debate became slightly garbled, with some text missing. I have now restored it to how it should have read.]
Regarding David’s point about cars parked on LTN roads, I might be more worried if there were none, because this would suggest they were all being driven at the time, adding to congestion on our roads. Car usage, rather than ownership, is the bigger issue. Many of my neighbours have drastically reduced their car usage since the LTN came in, as have I. And Geoffrey mentions younger generations, for whom, in a city like ours, low-traffic initiatives are a no-brainer.
Geoffrey makes a number of nuanced points, which make interesting reading, and I thank him for his thoughtfulness and his comments. I’m delighted he has seen his streets transformed for the better in the LTN, as have I. The LTN was a badly needed solution to a long-running problem. But I respectfully disagree on the desirability of this petition. To pick up three issues:
- The idea that driving on the A406 is ‘unreasonable’ is not sustainable. Plenty of nearby roads, outside the LTN, have only ever had car access onto the A406. No one has ever suggested that they are in an unreasonable situation, and no laws, regulations or rights are breached. The A406 is a high-capacity, multi-lane road that enables onward connections in all directions. Occasional roadworks and glitches are undesirable, but they do not last long, generally don’t affect all lanes, and the arterial route’s importance to TfL means that issues get prompt attention. In terms of designing an LTN, it is a logical choice for boundary-road access, especially since it contains a junction controlled by a traffic signal and enables several LTN roads to connect to it. Of course, a great way to avoid car traffic is to pick another mode of travel. But if we do drive, we must accept that congestion is not other people -- we are, ourselves, co-creators of it. In the words of the old adage, 'you are not in traffic, you are traffic'.
- The second issue is the idea that LTN roads are currently private. To describe them so would imply that every cul-de-sac and every housing estate in the land – in fact, any road that wasn’t literally open at both ends – is ‘private’. In reality, any car driver in the UK can drive their vehicle into the Bowes LTN on the same basis that residents can. That’s fair, honest and justifiable in my opinion. But providing special access points for residents only creates a privileged tier. I would be surprised if a council wished to set that precedent.
- Adding these private junctions is not merely a redistribution of existing traffic. It’s an incentive to drive more, and the inevitable result is more driving. A good reason why the vast majority of LTNs reject this option, and why councils often have ‘no private junctions’ as a red line.
In sum, I disagree with David, agree and disagree with Geoffrey – but it has been an interesting and civilized debate.
[Note by editor: , Due to technical problems, when originally posted this contribution to the debate became slightly garbled, with some text missing. I have now restored it to how it should have read.]
Thanks Mark for another very interesting post.
Can I take issue?
I can't agree your point 1, regarding it as unreasonable that Bowes LTN residents should not hope for better access than via the N Circ, on the grounds that other roads only have N Circ access. First, such roads never had horrific rat run problems so never required an LTN solution; secondly, residents in such roads often DON'T have traffic light-controlled access; third, residents in such roads definitely HAVE complained vociferously about the difficulties they have getting in and out - on occasion that has seen some action, but usually the number of residents involved is relatively low, so they have little weight against TfL in getting improvements which would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to implement. To continue, these roads never had alternative access routes which were taken away from them (and which the petition simply seeks to re-enable); and finally, since when do we require that everyone's access quality should be degraded to that of the least well-served? That's race to the bottom policy isn't it?
Mark's point 2 - when is a private road effectively a private road? The practical answer has to be "when you can't drive up it without getting fined". So yes, in theory any leisure driver may access the Bowes LTN via the N Circ in order to enjoy the well-laid out Victorian and Edwardian streets, with their lack of public spaces or shops (almost) - but they don't. Why would they? So creating a privileged tier? Who would be excluded? No-one.I hardly think that's going to keep Enfield's councillors up at night.
Mark's point 3 has merit as a prediction of a hypothetical result of change, but the way to find out whether it reflects what may happen is to do the experiment and find out. As I said before, if re-opening access via Maidstone Road/Warwick Road degrades residents' experience significantly, when balanced against the increased convenience (and reduced mileage) of the current situation, then we can pull the available levers to reverse it. As to Mark's contention that the re-opening would be an incentive to drive more - I just don't think so, based on my experience and that of my neighbours. But my prediction or expectation is worth no more than Mark's - you have to try it to find out.
Mark's final paragraph has real meat in it of course. We are surrounded by the results of all kinds of infrastructural nonsense which is the result of good intentions undermined by weak or at best only partial understanding of the possible unexpected and negative effects of change. All over the country we have built bigger and better roads with the intention of reducing traffic discomfort, when it is plain - in hindsight - that we have literally made the path to more traffic woes. However (and I would say this) I do feel that re-opening this access point is worth a try.
One aspect of the discussion I haven't seen touched on. If the re-opening were to work, it would have to be done via number plate recognition, registered with the council. That technology is all there, but it would be an additional cost expense for local councils to organise and maintain it. If councils offered the reopening on the basis that residents (those with cars, of course) were required to finance the work to make it cost-neutral to the council, would car drivers ante up say £100pa for the rights? Presumably it would have to be per vehicle - perhaps that would be a back-door incentive for multiple-car drivers to reduce their vehicle ownership...?
Can I take issue?
I can't agree your point 1, regarding it as unreasonable that Bowes LTN residents should not hope for better access than via the N Circ, on the grounds that other roads only have N Circ access. First, such roads never had horrific rat run problems so never required an LTN solution; secondly, residents in such roads often DON'T have traffic light-controlled access; third, residents in such roads definitely HAVE complained vociferously about the difficulties they have getting in and out - on occasion that has seen some action, but usually the number of residents involved is relatively low, so they have little weight against TfL in getting improvements which would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to implement. To continue, these roads never had alternative access routes which were taken away from them (and which the petition simply seeks to re-enable); and finally, since when do we require that everyone's access quality should be degraded to that of the least well-served? That's race to the bottom policy isn't it?
Mark's point 2 - when is a private road effectively a private road? The practical answer has to be "when you can't drive up it without getting fined". So yes, in theory any leisure driver may access the Bowes LTN via the N Circ in order to enjoy the well-laid out Victorian and Edwardian streets, with their lack of public spaces or shops (almost) - but they don't. Why would they? So creating a privileged tier? Who would be excluded? No-one.I hardly think that's going to keep Enfield's councillors up at night.
Mark's point 3 has merit as a prediction of a hypothetical result of change, but the way to find out whether it reflects what may happen is to do the experiment and find out. As I said before, if re-opening access via Maidstone Road/Warwick Road degrades residents' experience significantly, when balanced against the increased convenience (and reduced mileage) of the current situation, then we can pull the available levers to reverse it. As to Mark's contention that the re-opening would be an incentive to drive more - I just don't think so, based on my experience and that of my neighbours. But my prediction or expectation is worth no more than Mark's - you have to try it to find out.
Mark's final paragraph has real meat in it of course. We are surrounded by the results of all kinds of infrastructural nonsense which is the result of good intentions undermined by weak or at best only partial understanding of the possible unexpected and negative effects of change. All over the country we have built bigger and better roads with the intention of reducing traffic discomfort, when it is plain - in hindsight - that we have literally made the path to more traffic woes. However (and I would say this) I do feel that re-opening this access point is worth a try.
One aspect of the discussion I haven't seen touched on. If the re-opening were to work, it would have to be done via number plate recognition, registered with the council. That technology is all there, but it would be an additional cost expense for local councils to organise and maintain it. If councils offered the reopening on the basis that residents (those with cars, of course) were required to finance the work to make it cost-neutral to the council, would car drivers ante up say £100pa for the rights? Presumably it would have to be per vehicle - perhaps that would be a back-door incentive for multiple-car drivers to reduce their vehicle ownership...?
