Remember Me     Forgot Login?   Sign up  

Share this article

The first meeting of the Cycle Enfield Partnership Board to consider plans for a "key cycling commuter route" linking Enfield Town with Palmers Green will take place in the second week in January.

At the meeting selected "stakeholders" will discuss the section of cycle route between Vicars Moor Lane (Winchmore Hill) and Broomfield Lane (Palmers Green).  As well as looking at the proposal for segregated cycle lanes along Green Lanes, passing through Winchmore Hill and Palmers Green town centres, the stakeholders will be invited to consider an "alternative proposal that branches off at Green Dragon Lane and continues southwards to the A406 North Circular Road via local roads".  Although not overtly stated, this alternative has almost certainly been mooted in response to a fierce campaign against cycle lanes in Green Lanes which has been mounted by the Green Lanes Business Association (GLBA) and the N21.net website.

cycle enfield southwest corner

Current and planned cycle routes in Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill and Southgate (to see the key and the map for the whole borough, click on the image)

Stakeholders invited to the Partnership Board include the following:

  • Broomfield Home Owners' & Residents' Association (BHORA)
  • Enfield Business & Retailers Association (EBRA)
  • Enfield Cycle Campaign
  • Enfield Disability Action (EDA)
  • Enfield Vision
  • Fox Lane & District Residents' Association (FLDRA)
  • Grange Park Residents Association
  • Living Streets
  • London Cycling Campaign
  • Southgate & District Civic Trust (SDCT)
  • Sustrans
  • Transport for London (TfL)
  • Wheels for Well Being
  • Winchmore Hill Residents Association

+ councillors and David Burrowes, MP for Enfield Southgate.

It would appear that at this stage the only way to express views on the proposals is through one of these stakeholders.  Later in 2015, when firmer proposals have been decided on, the scheme will be opened up for fuller public consultation.

This article was amended on 2 January 2015 by the addition of a list of stakeholder organisations.

 

Broomfield Home Owners’ & Residents’ Association (BHORA)
Enfield Business & Retailers Association (EBRA)
Enfield Cycle Campaign
Enfield Disability Action (EDA)
Enfield Vision
Fox Lane & District Residents’ Association (FLDRA)
Grange Park Residents Association
Living Streets
London Cycling Campaign
Southgate & District Civic Trust (SDCT)
Sustrans
Transport for London (TfL)
Wheels for Well Being
Winchmore Hill Residents Association
 + councillors and David Burrowes, MP for Enfield Southgate
Log in to comment

Tom Mellor's Avatar
Tom Mellor posted a reply #668 30 Dec 2014 12:03
This 'alternative' is frankly a god awful plan and will not encourage cycling. We already have 'greenways' and yet still the modal share for cycling sits stubbornly at 1%. In fact, we have a 'greenway' running parallel to Green lanes! Why does it remain low? Because people on bikes, like everyone else, want convenient journeys that don't involve detours. For cycling to be effective, momentum must be conserved. Stopping and staring is very inefficient.

These 'greenways' are by design sinuous and involve stop-start style cycling, as opposed to the main roads.

If we want to increase the cycling modal share, the only option is to provide a high quality network along main roads. Greenways can be provided as well, but they cannot be the substitute. The Dutch do not expect people cycling to endure inconvenient journeys, so, for the mini Holland scheme, neither should we.
David Hughes's Avatar
David Hughes posted a reply #672 31 Dec 2014 16:41
And, responding to Tom Mellor, so say I.

I'd like to say a lot more, but, because I have other fish to fry today, I'll confine myself to pointing out two things. First that in an urban setting pushing cyclists off their most convenient route is an equality issue - and come-to-that so is pushing pedestrians off their most convenient route onto pedestrian crossing - and that, if the roads are to become safe for cycling, the sense of entitlement drivers feel as a consequence of 100 years of road rules which favour them has to be drawn to a close.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #676 02 Jan 2015 14:05
The original news item has now been amended to include a list of Stakeholders invited to the meeting. They are the following:
  • Broomfield Home Owners’ & Residents’ Association (BHORA)
  • Enfield Business & Retailers Association (EBRA)
  • Enfield Cycle Campaign
  • Enfield Disability Action (EDA)
  • Enfield Vision
  • Fox Lane & District Residents’ Association (FLDRA)
  • Grange Park Residents Association
  • Living Streets
  • London Cycling Campaign
  • Southgate & District Civic Trust (SDCT)
  • Sustrans
  • Transport for London (TfL)
  • Wheels for Well Being
  • Winchmore Hill Residents Association
+ councillors and David Burrowes, MP for Enfield Southgate
Paul Mandel's Avatar
Paul Mandel posted a reply #755 08 Jan 2015 14:26
This is no consultation. It's a stitch up. An extremely limited and slanted list of stakeholders. It's as if car drivers, including disabled ones, taxi or minibus drivers, motorcyclists and road hauliers have already been banned from Enfield.
Tom Mellor's Avatar
Tom Mellor posted a reply #760 09 Jan 2015 10:53
No it isn't like that at all. Those you mention already occupy 99% of the street space.

Those that are invited are the ones who should have a say in the scheme, namely the residents, businesses, and cycle campaigners, not taxi drivers...

Your inclusion of 'including disabled drivers' was amusing. Fail to see Enfield Disability Action and Wheels for Wheels For Well Being?
Paul Mandel's Avatar
Paul Mandel posted a reply #761 09 Jan 2015 12:42
The consultation looks like a sham simply to make the Council appear to be meeting its statutory obligations

Stakeholders are all those who benefit from the roads. The important thing is that Enfield Council spends the £30m to create something that is beneficial to all and not a pig's ear. It looks like the latter will be the more likely outcome.

The current scheme will harm local businesses and make travel around the Borough more difficult than it is already. Worsening existing pinch-points around Enfield Town Centre, Edmonton and to a lesser extend Palmers Green will make matters even worse creating designer congestion and pollution. People who drive into the area (and the vast majority are not going to change a habit of a lifetime), shop where it is convenient to them and, like it or not, they will desert if they can't park within 1/8 mile or less of their destination and getting there takes even longer because of increased congestion. Businesses will close. The range of goods and services will deteriorate and even very local people who previously walked to nearby shops will end up setting off in their cars elsewhere.

My personal view is that the A1010, A105 and A110 should be largely left alone and dedicated main cycle routes should be along existing quiet roads such as Old Park Avenue Enfield - Old Park Road (Palmers Green) . Shared space in town centres is fine provided parking and road space availability to private vehicles is not reduced.

Wheels for Wellbeing is a cycling advocacy group! Enfield disability action does not specifically represent disabled car drivers. Charities such as Disabled Motoring UK and the Disabled Drivers Federation represent them.
Tom Mellor's Avatar
Tom Mellor posted a reply #763 09 Jan 2015 14:01
Fine yes they should have also invited groups representing disabled drivers.

My problem with what you are saying is that 'beneficial to all' in your eyes means giving 100% to cars. If you think the A1010, A105, and A110 should be left alone, you are leaving most of the road space to cars, and Old Park Avenue is like the crumbs.

Also the £30 million is primarily for the benefit of cycling, which does not receive the regular funding. Do you instead suggest we give cycling decent funding levels, say £10-20 a year per person, which is actually more than £30 million. In any case increased cycling does benefit everyone else.

The baseless claims that people won't change their habits and that the area will die if cycle infrastructure is built completely ignores that habits stem from the environment. People cycle in the Netherlands because it is convenient and easy, not the other way round. Cycling in Britain is horrible. You also assume that the majority of shoppers arrive by car and that the majority use on street parking, again without evidence.

Pedestrianised shopping centres do well. It has been shown that the pleasantness of an area has more of an impact on business performance, not the availability of on street parking. And it's not like removing street parking completely leaves the driver with no other options, as there are plenty of spaces nearby. So unless driving twice the distance or so is faster than walking the 100m, it is still more convenient.

On street parking in the shopping centers increases congestion, and the cycle tracks will not affect the number of car lanes available.

Edit: It annoys me when someone against cycling infrastructure uses congestion and pollution as arguments. Bicycles are much more space efficient and create no pollution, so increasing the number of people cycling will help with those problems. The only way to do that is by providing good infrastructure.

Edit2: Let me illustrate as to why I think your position is unreasonable. Say we didn't build pavements next to roads and due to this pedestrian movements were low in all but the quietest streets. When providing pavements is proposed, many are opposed due to the 'low number of pedestrians', that people won't change their behaviour, or that it was 'not good for everyone' and unfair to 'car drivers'.

I'm not against car usage per se, as they do bring many advantages. They allow for the transportation goods and people over long distances, and they provide us with ambulances and fire engines, among other benefits. However, I do oppose mass car usage in an urban environment as it is not only unsustainable and damaging to society, it is also unnecessary. The vast majority of trips do not involve carrying anything particularly heavy and are not particularly long distance.

Let's look at the downsides to cars:

congestion
noise
green house gas emissions
air pollution
killing and maiming of thousands every year
occupying loads of space with atrociously looking structures
splitting communities with huge roads and an increase in crime due to this
preventing people from using active transport which worsens obesity
taking away of children's freedom
spending billions repairing roads and widening them

So we should be moving away from car usage, and the only way to do that is to provide viable alternatives.
David Hughes's Avatar
David Hughes posted a reply #766 09 Jan 2015 21:17
I attended the Cycle Enfield - West consultation meeting on the 8th January, and it seems to me that the recent contributions to this thread have the wrong end of the stick in relation to its purpose. Which was to inform about the limits to plans, and to garner ideas from the perspective of the need to promote and increase cycling. There were a few people reluctant to concede the importance of achieving change present, but that was chance; they had been invited to represent the thoughts, or perhaps the consensus, of their residents' group.

A wider, bigger and much longer - afternoon and evening - consultation for the wider community is planned for February, but that is far from the end of it. Later consultation will include pre-meeting leafletting to the whole community, presumably to ensure the best chance of a broad-based attendance at a critical time.

Enfield Council seems to be organising this programme 'by the book'. Perhaps it's time to give it credit at least for good intentions.

See also...

  • 26 May 2020

'A cry from the heart of Bowes'

Residents of streets to the south of Bowes Road, particularly those living in Brownlow Road, Warwick Road and nearby streets, have come together to launch a campaign to prevent traffic in the area building up to the unacceptably high levels that were normal prior to the Covid-19 lockdown. Their proposal is to create a low-traffic neighbourhood to prevent use of roads in the area as a cut-through. The campaign, under the slogan 'A Bus Gate for Brownlow?', has won the support of Better Streets for Enfield, who promote the idea of creating people-friendly streets across the entire borough. Read more

  • 11 May 2020

Government tells councils to reallocate roadspace for walking and cycling 'as swiftly as possible'

The government has told local authorities that it expects them to take urgent measures to reallocate roadspace away from cars to provide more room for walking and cycling 'as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks'. They are to include 'pop-up' cycle lanes with light segregation features, more school streets, lower speed limits, pedestrian and cycle zones that exclude motor traffic, low-traffic residential neighbourhoods, and bus and cycle corridors along key routes into town and city centres. Enfield Council's 'Streetspace Plan', announced last week, will incorporate measures of this sort - residents are able to upload their own suggestions on the council's Consultation Hub. Read more

  • 06 May 2020

Freeing up streetspace throughout London - including Enfield

Transport for London's Streetspace Programme, announced on Wednesday, is intended to rapidly transform the capital's streets to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking when lockdown restrictions are eased. Many boroughs have already started on their own similar schemes - Enfield's was announced on Tuesday. Measures of this kind have already been endorsed by the prime minister and business secretary. Read more

  • 28 April 2020

'We don't want or need to go back to those fume-filled, congested and hostile roads of the past'

'We don't want or need to go back to those fume-filled, congested and hostile roads of the past' - the message concluding a letter sent by campaigners to the leaders of Enfield Council concerned about what might happen once the coronavirus lockdown ends. They urge the leaders to to take steps to ensure that, as restrictions are gradually relaxed, high levels of car usage do not return, hindering social distancing and discouraging active travel modes - walking and cycling. Their suggestions include 'pop-up' cycle lanes along corridors for key workers, widening of pinchpoints that present hazards when walking or cycling, and re-allocation of road space at places where queues outside shops make it impossible for pedestrians to maintain safe distances. Read more

  • 06 April 2020

The road to Climate Safe Streets

xxx xxx   The urgent need The way we travel has to change. And quickly. In October 2018, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that we then had around 12 years to take bold... Read more