Remember Me     Forgot Login?   Sign up  

Quieter Neighbourhoods

Share this article

Enfield Council has now published a leaflet showing the (presumably) definitive plans for the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood.  They incorporate a number of changes to the original proposals, made in response to feedback during the consultation.  See the box at the end of this article for details.

According to the Quieter Neighbourhoods web page, planters will initially be placed at either end of the Mall and Selborne Road, enabling the team to confirm the detailed positioning. The remaining planters will then be rolled out across the area a few days later. The intention is to complete this work prior to Christmas (it's unclear whether this schedule refers only to the planters, or to the entire scheme - probably the latter.)

The council will be monitoring the effectiveness of the measures in the Spring, when new data about traffic in the area will be collected and compared with existing baseline data.  As regards the follow-on to the monitoring, Cycle Enfield have informed Better Streets for Enfield that "The processes for discussing the results of the monitoring and making any new proposals will depend in part on the results of the monitoring so have not yet been fully decided".

That (slightly confusing) statement was provided in response to an enquiry by Better Streets, in which the campaigning group expressed their pleasure at the decision to go ahead with the Fox Lane scheme.  In an email to deputy leader Daniel Anderson and other councillors representing wards in and near Palmers Green Better Streets co-chair Clare Rogers wrote:

We especially welcome the commitment in the report to monitor speed and volume post-implementation, and to introduce alternative measures to reduce traffic further if necessary. We are keen to see, as the report says, not just a slight reduction in traffic speed and volume, but a significant reduction - to 'create an environment where walking and cycling are facilitated and seen as the preferred form of travel'. If achieved, this would transform the area by reducing car journeys, increasing physical activity for all ages, reducing air pollution and creating stronger communities.

The Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood was on the agenda of last Friday's Winchmore Hill ward forum, where Clare Rogers gave a presentation about the scheme on behalf of Better Streets for Enfield. She also outlined the thinking behind "low-traffic neighbourhoods", which uses "modal filters" to make it impossible for drivers to cut through residential areas. The "villages" that have been created by Waltham Forest Council in parts of Walthamstow and Leyton use the same principles and have transformed the areas they cover. In the view of Better Streets, if the quieter neighbourhood scheme fails to achieve the desired outcomes, Enfield Council should consider implementing a low-traffic neighbourhood.  This could be done by using additional planters to create strategic barriers to through traffic.

The Better Streets presentation provoked much discussion among the forum attendees. Most people contributing to the debate were in favour of measures to restrict rat running and reduce speeds, though some had objections. A couple of Lakes Estate residents spoke about how much pleasanter their streets had become while temporarily blocked off at one end. A former resident of the area now known as "Walthamstow Village" confirmed that the area had been dramatically changed for the better.

Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood – Construction Proposals

Residents have told us that the biggest issues with traffic in your area are speeding, rat running cars and the school run. Having listened to the responses to the consultation several changes have been made including informal crossings along Fox Lane and changes to the junction of Meadway / Greenway. Work is due to start in the next few weeks with the placement of the planters at the entrances to the neighbourhood.

The locations of features such as traffic calming shown on this plan are only indicative.

fox lane qn revised design publicityClick on the image to download the leaflet

Neighbourhood Gateways

We will be placing large planters in the road so that drivers entering the roads are required to give way to vehicles exiting, which in turn will deter through traffic from using the residential area as a cut through. They will also indicate to drivers that this is a residential area and that speeding is unacceptable.

Psychological Traffic Calming

Where current average speeds are not fast enough to require full speed humps, we are painting “3D” humps on the road. This has been used elsewhere in London to great effect

Road Safety

An island will be constructed at the junction of Greenway / Meadway to prevent vehicles from cutting the corner when turning into Meadway from Greenway

Point No Entry

We will install point no entries at two locations to further deter through traffic as it will make their journey less straightforward and reduce the time saved travelling through the area. Following residents’ suggestions during the consultation, minor changes have been made to their position.

School Streets

We are proposing to ban vehicles from entering Cannon Road at school times. We intend to do this with minimum disruption to residents of this road by enforcing the ban via CCTV cameras. To ensure that parents do not just park as close as they can in other roads we will work with the school and provide support for alternatives to driving such as Park and Stride.

Roads with continuous footways

Roads that have had these features installed will have the new neighbourhood sign erected, and if necessary, after a period of monitoring, planters placed at their junctions with Aldermans Hill. Fox Lane will also have the sign erected.

Traffic Calming

To further improve road safety for pedestrians near the school we are proposing to install sinusoidal speed humps on Fox Lane. We know that a lot of people do not like speed humps even if they do wish to see slower cars, however, these humps are designed to reduce the noiseand vibration normally associated with speed humps.

Informal Crossings

We intend to install informal pedestrian crossings at all junctions along Fox Lane. But to begin with, we will trial their effectiveness at the junction of Fox Lane and Amberley Road / The Mall

Links

Quieter Neighbourhoods page on Cycle Enfield website

Full report on the outcome of the Fox Lane QN statutory consultation (The report is the third item in this document pack on the council website - however, the included drawings are incorrect)

Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood scheme to go ahead (PGC 9/10/2018)

Low-traffic neighbourhoods - two new guides (London Living Streets)

Better Streets for Enfield website

Better Streets for Enfield Facebook page

Log in to comment

David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #4190 07 Nov 2018 09:22
It's a pity the Lakes Estate streets don't really work for modal filtering - insufficient turning space for wherever the cut-offs would be.

Have the streets ever been considered for a one way system though? I'm thinking like the Harringay ladder? Up one, down the next, etc.
Clare Rogers's Avatar
Clare Rogers posted a reply #4191 07 Nov 2018 15:49
Alternating one-way streets are one way to keep through traffic out of a neighbourhood, but they're difficult to get right (you can end up channelling all the traffic down a couple of unfortunate streets - think Grenoble Gdns N13). Modal filters are the gold standard! And absolutely no reason why they couldn't work in the Fox Lane neighbourhood. If you walk around the low traffic neighbourhoods in Waltham Forest you'll see the streets are very similar in design to ours. For turning, filters can for example be placed near the entrance to Mews roads. Or (God forbid) create the space by removing some parking...
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4192 07 Nov 2018 16:44
Four years since the process started, a year since the statutory consultation, about eight months of “analysis” of the responses before an alternate proposal was finally put forward, only for that to be changed at the very last minute and this latest / final version to be presented. Let me say that the 50 or so residents of my street who voted so strongly in favour of the first one, in total constituting significantly more than the difference between those in favour and those against the overall scheme, and so making it a clear net GO rather than a NO GO, would not be backing this one; and I have a strong feeling will not be backing this one.

So what does that mean for consultation and the “process” (beyond extremely slow and unnecessarily costly)?
Adrian Day's Avatar
Adrian Day posted a reply #4193 07 Nov 2018 17:39
Very disappointed that the promised planter for Old Park Road south end has been removed. 15 years we've been campaigning to reduce rat running; after many false starts and promises we finally saw a map with restricted entry - and a week later it's take away. I'm looking at moving.
Lucy B's Avatar
Lucy B posted a reply #4194 07 Nov 2018 18:21
Old Park Road is dangerous! I live at the South end with 2 young children and I cannot believe anyone thinks the amount and speed of the traffic is safe enough not to intervene. How can it possibly make sense to remove this planter from the plan last minute?
Kate S's Avatar
Kate S posted a reply #4195 07 Nov 2018 18:43
This is a huge disappointment. Old Park Road is a dreadful rat run, our dog nearly got run over recently.
We want the planter!
John Phillips's Avatar
John Phillips posted a reply #4197 08 Nov 2018 11:45
I have spoken to a lot of my neighbours in Lakeside Road and, while we are glad to be getting one planter, we are disappointed that the continuous pavement is deemed to be enough to both reduce and slow down traffic. Clearly it is not. But the situation will be kept under review so we live in hope.
We have also spoken to neighbours in Grovelands Road who feel the same.
On the matter of one-way streets, I would consider anything to reduce rat-running, but surely they would speed up the traffic and I don't think that is what we want.
Michael Monaghan's Avatar
Michael Monaghan posted a reply #4202 Yesterday 10:20
Believe me,Devonshire Road is no better!

Share this article

Enfield Council's cabinet member for the environment has given the go-ahead for implementation of the "Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood" scheme, as originally proposed in November 2017, though with some modifications in response to points raised during the consultation process. No information is available about how soon the work will be done (a few elements are already in place - the "Copenhagen crossings" shown on the map below as pink circles).

fox lane qn consultation map smallerMap showing the original proposals, some of which have been modified or dropped.  For the key to the map see this article from November 2017 (click on the map to enlarge)

The scheme encompasses a large area of entirely residential streets extending from Palmers Green Triangle nearly all the way to Southgate Circus.  The map above was extracted from the original proposals, so does not reflect any changes, but the overall concept remains the same.

fox lane qn entry concept

Planters at Neighbourhood Zone entry points

The entire area will be signed as a "Neighbourhood Zone" with a non-mandatory 20mph limit.  The green circles are the signs indicating this, which will be mounted on large planters installed in the roadway to discourage drivers from using the roads as through routes (see the artist's impression).

Along Fox Lane itself there will be sinusoidal speed humps, designed to enourage slower driving without creating noise or hazards for cyclists.

The road narrowing shown on the map will not be included and the details of point no-entry treatments in the Meadway estate have change

The decision was among those listed in Publication of Decision List 23/18-19, published on 28th September, and took effect on Monday 8th October.  The summary information in the decision list is shown in the box below. The full consultation report is also available an incorporates an analysis of responses and objections.

Excerpt from Publication of Decision List No 23/18-19

AGREED: that the following decisions will come into effect on 8th October, subject to not being called in:

1. That the Quieter Neighbourhood scheme for the Fox Lane Area as illustrated in Appendix A of the report be implemented, including:

  • Provision of neighbourhood zone encouraging lower speeds with entry treatments using signs and planters.
  • Provision of speed humps in Fox Lane
  • “3D speed cushion” markings in Devonshire Road
  • Informal crossing point at the Amberley Road/Fox Lane junction
  • Point No Entry on Meadway
  • School Street in Cannon Road

2. That the following is noted;

  • Road narrowing, other than at junctions, is not progressed.
  • Measures for the Meadway/Greenway junction will be brought forward for consultation with ward councillors and local residents

3. That the traffic management orders be made to bring the scheme into operation, including any necessary experimental traffic management order relating to the point no-entry in the Meadway and the Cannon Road School Street.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Do nothing. This is not recommended as Quieter Neighbourhoods form an essential part of the strategy to promote walking and cycling in the Borough.

Implement the scheme as consulted on. This is not recommended as several comments made in response to the consultation raised legitimate issues that have been addressed as part of the development of the final scheme.

Introduction of modal filters. This option was considered, but is not recommended at this time, subject to the monitoring of the recommendations contained with this report.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed recommendations will enable a scheme to be implemented that promotes walking and cycling by reducing the impact of traffic in the Fox Lane area. In view of this mixed response to the proposed point no-entry, it is also recommended that this be installed on a trial basis, with further consultation undertaken before a final decision is made whether it should be retained, removed or modified.

Links

Publication of Decision List No 23/18-19

Full report on the outcome of the Fox Lane QN statutory consultation (The report is the third item in this document pack)

Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood proposals published (PGC 1 November 2017)

Log in to comment

John Phillips's Avatar
John Phillips posted a reply #4111 16 Oct 2018 13:43
I was rather alarmed to see, on clicking through to the map attached to the document pack, that the side roads off Fox Lane get planters but not Lakeside and Grovelands Roads. These will now become the preferred rat-runs for vehicles avoiding the Green Lanes shopping area.
The continuous pavements are welcome but have done next to nothing to reduce levels of traffic, noise, fumes and speeding.
I thought the scheme was supposed to be holistic in that it would not prefer some roads over others. Have I got it wrong?
John Phillips
Lakeside Road
Adrian Day's Avatar
Adrian Day posted a reply #4112 17 Oct 2018 12:46
I suspect you're right, John. I understand the final design was based on the feedback from individual street residents.
Colin Younger's Avatar
Colin Younger posted a reply #4116 18 Oct 2018 10:36
I agree with the concerns expressed about the likely increase in traffic and traffic speeds along Lakeside Road. The traffic measurement data for Lakeside Road is likely to be faulty because the equipment was deliberately sabotaged early in the survey period, and I'm not aware that it was replaced or repaired.

The continuous pavement was never likley to reduce traffic speeds along the road, nor were planters. The only answer for this are properly designed and placed speed humps.
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #4117 18 Oct 2018 10:45
Can't say I'm happy with the school street being agreed. Great example of a surface level easy "vote winner" but totally ill-thought out.

It's a tiny short cul de sac. Not a busy through road. "School Streets" are great ideas where I've seen them elsewhere but Cannon Road is not relevant - it doesn't having speeding traffic or room for hundreds of school run cars. Majority of all school traffic already burdens Conway Road and Harlech, not Cannon, and they do not form part of the school streets proposal but will now bear the entire brunt of it as even more parents park there (often obnoxiously).
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #4118 19 Oct 2018 13:07
I was struck by the disappearance of the proposed planter with its suggested 20 mph speed limit signage at the eastern end of Fox Lane. The speed humps will start much further up yet the automatic speeding sign near the rail bridge reveals frequent speeding of vehicles. Why would anything change given that nothing is changing? This is a fast, often unpleasant stretch of residential street, now seemingly being ignored. Picking up an earlier thread, you could rat run from Green Lanes to Aldermans Hill without any indication things have apparently changed to make local life easier for pedestrians and cyclists. And so much for my own hope of a safer cycle route to Southgate.
Däna Roberts's Avatar
Däna Roberts posted a reply #4122 22 Oct 2018 23:11
While the continuous pavement was being built, one road was closed at a time - roads next to the closed road experienced a big increase in traffic. If only Grovelands Road and Lakeside Road are unprotected by planters and every other road has one, if not two, then the "Quieter Neighbourhood Plan" will have the effect of turning Grovelands and Lakeside into rat runs.

Any driver who wants to avoid the high street lights travelling south will turn up Fox Lane and turn left down Grovelands before they reach the first speed hump on Fox Lane. Grovelands is the shortest and straightest street in the relevant area and suffers high speeds already.

No testing was done on Grovelands and the revised plan was not publicised before it was adopted last week.

Why are only two streets left unprotected in the area - which will mean that all the traffic which previously would have been spread through the area will instead choose Grovelands and Lakeside? Surely WAYZ and other satnav software will quickly pick up on the easy streets to travel down?

The original proposals included a planter at the bottom of both roads - on what basis have those been withdrawn?

It is not a fair outcome for the residents of those roads (yes, I am one!) and we need to challenge it. Does anyone know who we should address our concerns to??
Richard Mapleston's Avatar
Richard Mapleston posted a reply #4145 25 Oct 2018 09:05
I am Chair of FLDRA - the Residents Association. We too have published the Council Plan - in edited form so you don't need to scroll to find item 3. We recently issued a call for comment - to our email in-box - so it is helpful to see these views as well. We will be writing on behalf of FLDRA to the Council. But meantime it would help if contributors to PG Community Newsletter copied us in on any comments that they might have please.
Neil Littman's Avatar
Neil Littman posted a reply #4148 25 Oct 2018 10:34
Have to say that I don't think there are any winners with schemes like this as reducing traffic flows in one part of the area simply moves the traffic to another part instead of being evenly distributed and it is very unlikely that the overall level of traffic in the area will reduce at all unless you go for the drastic solution that happened in Walthamstow where all side roads are basically for entry and exit only and the only through routes are the main roads on the boundary of the area. The same thing as Fox Lane QN will probably happen to the Fernleigh Road QN and everyone will be complaining that they didn't expect it. I think they should have put platforms on all the road entrances and left the rest as is.

Share this article

Following consideration of responses to statutory consultation, Enfield Council will be implementing an amended version of its proposals for the Fernleigh Road Quieter Neighbourhood. It will also be going ahead with measures to provide safer access to the Salmons Brook Quietway from the A105 at Bush Hill Parade.

The decision to go ahead with both schemes was announced on the Cycle Enfield website at the beginning of August.

fernleigh road quieter neighbourhood consultation  mapThe Fernleigh Road Quieter Neighbourhood proposals as set out in the statutory consultation in February. Some of the proposals shown here will not be implemented.

The "Fernleigh Road" scheme actually encompasses a large area to the north of Green Lanes, stretching from the Bourne Hill end of Hoppers Road as far as Station Road in Winchmore Hill.  In response to objections from residents, several important features in the original proposals have been dropped:  one-way traffic in Eaton Park Road and Meadowcroft Way, carriageway narrowing affecting several roads, and banned turns into Radcliffe Road and Ringwood Way.

Bury Street west cycle improvements

The improvements at the Church Street end of Bury Street West as originally planned.  The scheme will go ahead with some changes

The features that are retained are an area-wide 20mph limit; speed humps and speed cushions in Fernleigh Road, Woodberry Avenue and Compton Road; and a point no-entry feature in Stonard Road - though this last feature will be implemented on a trial basis initially.

The scheme around the Bury Street West/Church Street junction at Bush Hill Parade will go ahead, again with some changes in response to objections.  Its function is to improve safety for both cyclists and pedestrian wishing to access the new Quietway running towards Edmonton along the Salmons Brook.

The reports prepared by council officers in support of decisions about these two schemes are included in a document on the council website - the Reports Pack for Publication of Decisions List No 9 dated 20 July 2018.  The report on the Fernleigh Road scheme starts on page 7 and is followed immediately by the report on the Church Streets scheme.  Both reports contain information about objections to the schemes and the corresponding responses from council officers.

Links

Fernleigh Road Quieter Neighbourhood (Cycle Enfield 3/8/2018)

Bury Street West upgrade (Cycle Enfield 3/8/2018)

Publication of Decisions List No 9 dated 20 July 2018 (Enfield Council)

Fernleigh Road Quieter Neighbourhood statutory consultation (Palmers Green Community 28/2/2018)

Cycle Enfield: Consultations on four minor proposals (Palmers Green Community 29/10/2017)

Log in to comment

Share this article

orford road walthamstowOrford Road, Walthamstow - part of a successful low traffic neighbourhood

Two new publications set out the case for creating Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London and explain the various design principles that can be used. 

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - An Introduction for Policymakers and A Guide to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are revised versions of briefing documents that were issued jointly by London Living Streets and the London Cycling Campaign ahead of the recent council elections.  Despite the title of the first, they are both easily understood by non-specialist readers.

What is a "low traffic neighbourhood"?

As defined in the first document,

“Low traffic neighbourhoods” are groups of residential streets, bordered by main or “distributor” roads (the places where buses, lorries, non-local traffic should be), where “through” motor vehicle traffic is discouraged or removed. There’s lots of ways you can make a low traffic neighbourhood, but the main principle is that every resident can drive onto their street, get deliveries etc., but it’s harder or impossible to drive straight through from one main road to the next.

Why Low Traffic Neighbourhoods should be a priority for policy makers

low traffic street in walthamstow

  • To reduce air pollution, lower collision rates, increase community activity and increase the physical activity of residents, we need to enable a lot more people to walk and cycle. These ‘active’ modes of travel become the default in low traffic neighbourhoods partly because they feel very easy, safe and comfortable.
  • Active travel also goes up in low traffic neighbourhoods by making car use a bit less convenient. If car use is really convenient, people use the car (this is called “induced demand”), but by making some driving journeys a bit more inconvenient (while making other modes feel safe and comfortable), people switch modes, yet the main roads don’t suffer (this is called “traffic evaporation”).
  • The cost of putting in infrastructure is very cheap – entire neighbourhoods can often be calmed with a few well-placed bollards, planters, or signs. This also means you can experiment and adapt schemes at very low cost. More walking and cycling-friendly neighbourhoods are good for local business and can help local high streets thrive too.
  • These neighbourhoods align directly with the new Mayor’s Transport Strategy. So funding and support from TfL and City Hall should be easier to access – and cutting motor traffic from your neighbourhoods will help your borough fulfil its targets in the Transport Strategy.
  • Technology such as sat-nav apps like Waze and Google Maps, or services like Uber, increasingly route cars off main roads and onto residential streets to shave 30 seconds off a journey. That means many previously quiet roads are becoming increasingly busy and hostile for the people who live on them

Source: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - An Introduction for Policy Makers

A low traffic neighbourhood would typically be of a size where it would take no more than fifteen minutes to walk across it.

The guide includes a "myth-busting" section to deal with common misconceptions.  For instance, a frequent reaction to schemes designed to remove through traffic from residential streets is to assume that they would cause congestion on main roads or on other residential streets, and would be problematical for emergency services and for elderly or mobility impaired people.  This is not the case.

How do Quieter Neighbourhoods fit in?

The original Mini Holland bid document submitted by Enfield council mentioned a long-term goal of creating a "Dutch-style network of residential cells across Enfield".  The bid says that the "Dutch approach to these cells is as shared spaces where speeds and through traffic are reduced [...]. The outer edges of these cells have consistent signage and design features, such as entry treatments that signal to motorists to lower their speeds".

The low-traffic neighbourhood principles that London Lliving Streets are promoting -  already tried and tested with great success by Waltham Forest council in Wallthamstow and Leyton - are the perfect way to create such residential cells.  Unfortunately, the actual proposals for "Quieter Neighbourhoods" (the new name that was adopted for the residential cells) have only partially lived up to this ambition.  There is little consistency between the approaches taken to individual QNs and the plans for two of the first QNs - "Connaught Gardens" and "Wolves Lane" - do absolutely nothing to tackle well known rat runs along the two streets that the neighbourhoods are named after.  It remains to be seen how successful the "Fox Lane" and "Fernleigh Road" schemes prove to be.

A low-traffic neighbourhood in Bowes ward?

One residential part of the borough that has not so far figured in the council's proposals for Quieter Neighbourhoods is the area in Bowes ward to the west of Green Lanes and south of the North Circular Road (Bowes Road).  In fact, this area includes two residential streets which are vying with one another for the dubious honour of being the worst affected by congestion in the whole of Enfield - Brownlow Road and Warwick Road - much of it caused by drivers trying to shave a few seconds off their journey along the North Circular Road by cutting through the area.

It's not as if the council isn't aware of the residents' problems - they are regularly voiced at ward forum meetings.  However, this is not a problem that could be solved by a few small changes, which would just shift the problem to other streets.  It can only be tackled using a comprehensive approach which would have to cover the entire area between the North Circular to the west and north (Telford Road and Bowes Road), Green Lanes to the east and Bounds Green Road to the south (or to - much of which is actually in another borough, Haringey.

Local campaigners Better Streets for Enfield see the solution being an area-wide low-traffic neighbourhood and have drawn up a draft scheme that would drastically reduce through traffic not just in Warwick and Brownlow Roads, but also in other residential streets, such as those between Green Lanes and Palmerston Road. For more information, see this article on their website.

This plan has also been adopted by Enfield Green Party.  Party members canvassing the area for the council elections reported considerable interest in the idea when talking to residents.

Liveable Neighbourhoods

A scheme of the kind described above would fall fairly and squarely within the parameters of the Mayor of London's Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme (yes, a third sort of "neighbourhood", I hope you're not getting too confused!).  Councils are able to apply for up to £10 million to pay for such schemes.  The Liveable Neighbourhoods concept is fairly flexible, as it depends on the context - for instance, Haringey will be implementing one to improve the area around the clocktower in Crouch End, which will obviously be very different from a residential cell-type scheme.

The guidance for Liveable Neighbourhoods stipulates that

A Liveable Neighbourhoods project will deliver attractive, healthy, accessible and safe neighbourhoods for people. Typically, this may involve changes to town centres and their surrounding residential areas to improve conditions for walking and cycling and reduce traffic dominance. This may include new pedestrian crossings, a network of good cycle routes, reduced parking provision, redesigned junctions, restrictions on motor traffic in town centres, high streets and residential streets, and wider improvements against each of the ten Healthy Streets Indicators

Time to be bolder?

Enfield Council has been subjected to a prolonged, vociferous and at times very unpleasant chorus of objections to its plans for cycle lanes and quieter neighbourhoods, and some individual councillors, notably Daniel Anderson and before him Chris Bond, have been singled out for abuse.  The local Conservatives campaigned against cycle lanes in the council elections, and much good it did them.  In other parts of London where Conservatives were campaigning against cycling infrastructure proposals, the swing against them was higher than average.  Of course, we don't know why people voted the way they did, but I think that Andrew Gilligan was right to say that "it does now seem clear that opposing cycling improvements and pandering to motorists is not, and probably never will be, a vote-winner in London or any other major city" (Guardian, 5 June 2018).

So if councillors can be forgiven for being a tad nervous in the face of the motorists' lobby before the election, they now know that changes desi.gned to correct the imbalance between cars and people on our streets will not lose them votes.  Time to be bolder, Enfield council?

This article was amended on 18th June 2018 to correct the boundaries of the area covered by the proposed low traffic neighbourhood scheme in Bowes ward.

Links

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - An Introduction for Policy Makers (London Living Streets/London Cycling Campaign)

Guide to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (London Living Streets/London Cycling Campaign)

Hope for Better Streets in Bowes (Better Streets for Enfield)

Liveable Neighbourhoods Guidance (Transport for London)

Log in to comment

Adrian Day's Avatar
Adrian Day posted a reply #3926 18 Jun 2018 11:19
Thanks Basil. A clear and well-written articulation of Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods. Bring them on!
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3927 18 Jun 2018 16:59
Totally agree. Great post/article and smashing concept - let's hope it rolls out in more places soon. Especially my old Bowes ward (which I didn't realise included Warwick Rd, have always seen Brownlow as the western boundary) where Palmerston Road is a bit of a shocker and a terrible choice for Quietway 10!

Share this article

Enfield Conservatives were no doubt hoping that a press release that they sent to the Enfield Independent would help them in their bid to recapture control of Enfield Council in Thursday's elections.  But I doubt whether they were expecting the amount of publicity that the paper's report and accompanying photograph would bring them - two further reports on the local paper's website, one in the Evening Standard and headlines on the national news website Huffington Post.  Not to mention several threads on Twitter.

A bit of explanation for those who've missed this story:  The picture sent to the paper had been "photoshopped".  David Burrowes and his dog had been inserted into a picture of a crowd of people protesting about a dangerous junction in the Meadway Estate.  It seems he'd turned up late and had missed the photo opportunity, so before the image was sent to the paper his omission was rectified.  The probability of anyone spotting this was presumably assessed as being low.  However, one of the people who'd actually been there did spot it and complained because he didn't want to appear in the same photograph as David Burrowes.

To cut a long story short, what had happened was picked up by Twitter users and spread.  There was great amusement at the fact that the dog appeared to be levitating, with all four paws off the ground.  What's more, the dog's stance bore some resemblance to that of a widely published photograph of the new home secretary.  And various spoofs of the photoshopped photo started appearing on Twitter, such as the one below.

david burrowes and dog photoshopped into photoOne of several images posted to Twitter featuring David Burrowes and his dog

Judged by the standards of recent very serious occurrences of Fake News, was the fuss about the insertion of David and his dog into the photo nothing more serious that a "storm in a dog bowl"?  Should there be "zero tolerance" of any sort of manipulation of facts,  however petty?  Not sure, personally.  However, if it has distracted attention away from the important issues about the future of Enfield, then that's not good.

And what about the subject of the original press release?  The protest was about the failure of Enfield Council to do anything about the extremely wide junction of Meadway and Greenway.  This is a junction that I know well, as it's on my (relatively) low-traffic walking route from PG to Southgate.  Pedestrians have to cross an absolutely huge expanse of tarmac roadway, hoping that a car isn't going to suddenly appear and mow them down at high speed. Changes to this junction surely ought to have been included in the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood scheme, but weren't even in the original consultation.  Why not?

meadway junction google mapsThis image from Google Maps shows the huge expanse of roadway that pedestrians have to cross

Though I'm a firm supporter of the Quieter Neighbourhoods concept, I'm frankly dismayed at the haphazard way that the proposals have been developed.  Why no measures to stop the dreadful rat-running along Connaught Gardens and Oakthorpe Road, same question applies to Tottenhall Road and Wolves Lane?  All those roads are in Quieter Neighbourhood schemes but have been ignored.

The original version of this article was a spoof and has been replaced as some readers found it offensive.

Log in to comment

Hal Haines's Avatar
Hal Haines posted a reply #3814 02 May 2018 06:16
Who wrote this? “gullible lycra-lovers”? I am sure Kevin would object to that too. Why all the anti cycling stuff? Have Palmers Green Community actually been following the story and why make this about the cycle lanes when it has nothing to do with that? By the way notice that there are no Conservative banners in the shot? That is because all “political” photos were done prior to this. There is absolutely nothing wrong in putting a bit of pressure on the Labour administration to sort this area out - it is rat-running hell.
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3815 02 May 2018 14:07
I find this article quite offensive. Like Hal, I would like to know who wrote and posted it?

This is meant to be an independent forum for open discussion, not a personal blog site to advocate one person's opinion.

Plenty on hear have raised their objections to the lanes, which is fine, and others have supported them. But language such as the below is far from benign. In fact, this whole article feels like it has been written by an ardent Tory supporter as it is quite clear from the fall out from this that the local Tory's have come out of this with NO credit. It only went viral because they all ran away and hid and refused to answer questions about it. Disgusting 2018 politics.

"The PR team cleverly ensured that the photo into which Mr Burrowes had been inserted included two people known to be his sworn enemies - fanatical cycle lane campaigners. And when these gullible lycra-lovers spotted the picture in the paper, they naturally kicked up a fuss on Twitter and complained to the Enfield Independent, demanding that the editor replace the offending photo asap."
Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3816 02 May 2018 14:38
Like 99% of stuff on this website, it was written by me, and I meant to publish it under my own name. It was meant as a joke, but clearly has misfired, so I'll replace it. I don't really believe that the Tories wanted to create fuss about the photoshopping, I expect they didn't think that anyone would notice.

The stuff about fanatical lycra-lovers was meant to be a spoof of the exaggerated language used by the tabloid press.

As it happens, I would have gone along to the protest myself if I'd known about it, because I cross that junction on foot fairly often and it is definitely a hazard and should have been tackled as part of the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood.

Basil
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3819 04 May 2018 15:49
With 99% of the content of this hugely valuable web site and 6% of the vote in the Palmers Green ward as a mere “paper candidate” I think Basil should rest easy. Clearly here is someone whose community efforts are appreciated.
On the “doggate” junction, locals to the space were at the first QN workshop. Their very strong stance was to close Meadway to through traffic using that street as a Southgate 5-ways bypass. That would certainly cap the issue.
Looking at the complete Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood, the four impacted wards have moved from yesterday’s 6 Labour and 6 Conservative councillors to today’s 10 Labour and only 2 Conservative councillors, with one of those two scraping in by a mere three votes. On the basis the Conservative campaign was essentially led by hostility to cycling and Quieter Neighbourhoods versus a positive approach to the same by Labour perhaps we can now look forward to some long awaited traffic relief across so many of the areas streets. The implication must be that it's what people were happy to go with.

Share this article

 lakes estate street party

Residents of a street on the Lakes Estate occupied the road outside their houses at the weekend, protesting about the lack of rat-running cars whizzing past their houses.

One local, who preferred to remain anonymous, but we'll call "Musey", told me, "The situation is becoming intolerable, for more than a fortnight now we've been deprived of the stress and excitement of worrying about our kids being hit by a car, and the street doesn't smell like it usually does either.  I've had to go all the way down to the North Circ to fill my lungs with proper city air."

lakeside road continuous pavement 1

Fortunately, the residents will get some relief soon, as the work to create continuous pavements across the Aldermans Hill end of Lakeside Road and Old Park Road is nearing completion.  However, it will then be the turn of people living in other Lakes Estate road to suffer.  And Musey is also worried that the situation won't return to full normality, as the continuous pavement might act as a deterrent to cars to turn into his street.  "It's quite outrageous.  By building the pavement across the end of the road the Council is risking the scenario that drivers will be forced to wait while pedestrians exercise their right to priority while walking along Aldermans Hill.  It would be quite intolerable if car drivers had to start following the rules in the Highway Code - it's a point of pride that as soon as we pass our test we throw that stupid little book straight in the bin.  If things go on like this, they'll start enforcing speed limits next!"

Log in to comment

David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3805 26 Apr 2018 10:05
Hang on, please tell me this is an Onion/Daily Mash ironic take on matters and those people were actually enjoying a street party thanks to the temporary closure.....??
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3806 26 Apr 2018 18:28
Sorry to disappoint David but residents were actually waiting for the mystical appearance of ex Conservative MP David Burrowes who has developed an advanced skill of appearing into groups completely out of thin air before disappearing away again. A sort of cross between Dr Who and The Terminator. The webmaster may be able to provide some evidence.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3807 27 Apr 2018 09:33
You don’t see him and then you do;
or perhaps it occurred the other way around, see him then you don’t.


This scandalous PR seeking to attack the Quieter Neighbourhood programme was removed from the local press.

In honesty terms it’s right up there with Ertan Hurer’s analysis of the cycle lanes (see recent postings), the red bus weekly £350m the NHS, and no Windrush linked immigration targets. What have we come to?

And I have to declare an interest, for having read pretty much all of the thousands of pages of supporting analysis behind Mayor Johnsons Transport Strategy and something similar for its development under Mayor Khan, the path Enfield has started on with active travel is the only realistic future, as cities worldwide have also concluded.

I never believed the deliberate scare that hundreds of business would close as a consequence of the cycle lanes (nor the present line that small businesses have closed any more than I would claim the openings we have been seeing are as a consequent), the palpable nonsense that cycling produces worse air quality than motorised transport, that Quieter Neighbourhoods are nonsensical and the much more long touted.

Rather we have a relatively small change to a small part of the borough making it that little bit easier for some to travel safely in a way they choose, without stopping others in their chosen or necessary means. Always remembering the minority, including basically all schoolchildren, do not drive.

And making up photos for the press is where we end up after 4 years of this line. On the bright side I like the sunshine in the front row versus the rain to the far left. What a shower you might say.
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3808 27 Apr 2018 10:01
Haha yes, I've been watching this fun unfold on Twitter. Absolutely scandalous. It's such an abvious photoshop!

Rumour is the majority of those folk aren't even genuine residents, it's a small group heavily padded out with Tory prospective councillors. And then some photoshop on top (umbrella guy looks fake too).

Cllr Andrerson has been calling them out on it and Jasmine Storry (Tory candidate for Southgate Ward) still has the article on her timeline and isn't responding to questions about it.

Can't decide what's worse, this, or Haringay Cons copy & pasting Labour tweets and forgetting to swap 'Labour values' for 'Tory values'.

Share this article

Enfield Council is currently running the statutory consultation phase for the package of traffic orders proposed for the "Fernleign Road" Quieter Neighbourhood, which covers a large area extending from Stonard Road in Palmers Green to Station Road in Winchmore Hill.

fernleigh statutory consultation map 2018

The first phase of consultations was held in October and November.  For the statutory consultation, which runs up to 18th March, some changes have been made in response to feedback from the first phase, but the overall scheme is very similar. The major changes are that measures to reduce speeds in Fernleigh Road and Woodberry Avenue will be designed in such a way as to not affect the availability of street parking, and the Council is now proposing to install speed humps in Compton Road and Ratcliffe Road (Ratcliffe Road did not figure at all in the original proposals).

The purpose of the statutory consultation is to "enable residents from individual streets to give a clearer indication of their views on the variety of proposals we are suggesting" - wording which suggests that the Council wishes to hear only from local residents.

Log in to comment

Share this article

The Winchmore Hill ward forum held on 9th January included a briefing on Quieter Neighbourhoods by Richard Eason from the Cycle Enfield team at Enfield Council.  The bullet point summary below is taken from the official minutes of the meeting, available on the council website.  The discussion evidently relates mainly to the Fox Lane and Fernleigh Road QNs.  Many of the points appear to be comments made by members of the public at the meeting and Richard Eason's responses to them.  Some of the points raised by the public relate to the Cycle Enfield scheme along Green Lanes, rather than to Quieter Neighbourhoods.

  • Traffic should be using the primary network of roads and Quieter neighbourhoods scheme (QNs) aims to encourage it to do that and not use residential roads.  In time, all parts of Enfield will be offered schemes like this.
  • The Fernleigh QN and much of the Fox Lane QN are in Winchmore Hill ward.
  • Residents give their thoughts on their roads through a perception survey and this, together with traffic management expertise is used to develop some alternative proposals.  In Fernleigh and Fox Lane QNs, previous information gathered through workshops has also been available. 
  • The consultations are now closed for these QNs although there must still be a statutory consultation for the Fernleigh QN because the different options available in Fernleigh Road and Woodberry Avenue prevented this being done at the same time as the perception survey.
  • Data are still being analysed.  80% of the responses received have been from residents living in the QNs, the remaining 20% lived just outside.  The reports will be published on the Council web site.
  • It is hoped to implement whatever is decided by the spring.
  • Issues raised by residents and not included above:
  • If a road does not want traffic calming but most others do, residents will be informed so that they can say if this affects their decision.
  • Additional calming measures have been proposed in Hoppers Road and the effect of being in a 20mph zone should make this more effective than the current measures.
  • Speed cameras are very expensive and need to be positioned in specific places to be effective.
  • Access / delivery only signs cannot be enforced.  Cameras cannot be used to do this.
  • The council has no objection to flashing signs showing when motorists are speeding.  However they are very expensive.
  • The diversion signs to allow work on the Bourne Hill, Hedge Lane junction are causing problems in some residential roads especially Woodberry Avenue.  
    The diversions were changed as a result of this. DB
  • Blue discs displayed on bus stops in Green Lanes indicate that cyclists do not have the right of way.
  • Signs are designed to be effective for those who need to see them and not to distract with clutter.
  • Pollution levels on Green Lanes continue to be monitored.  Walking and cycling do not use pollution.
  • The number of pedestrian crossings has increased (nearly doubled).
  • Inconsiderate / dangerous driving is an offence and a matter of the driver’s behaviour.
  • Cycling courses are available for children and all Enfield schools can access free cycle training for their children.
  • Many pedestrians find the lights at Sainsbury’s difficult to use even though the refuge is larger so two stage crossing is easier and the traffic lights make the flow of traffic more predictable.  Suggestions made to improve it:
  • The left hand filter light coming north is difficult to read - you think you are safe when you aren’t.  Changing this could decrease the capacity of the junction.
  • The left filter is the problem - removing it would help the traffic flow.
  • The lights are in the wrong place. Pedestrians cannot see the lights.  The problem is the same at Station Road.
  • Fords Grove is to be re built to improve the crossing for pedestrians and especially those using wheelchairs or pushing buggies.
  • Richard Eason said he would look into the points raised.

Log in to comment

David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3585 30 Jan 2018 09:27
What's the issue with the left filter at Sainsbury's (heading north)? Not sure I understand it. I presume this is solely from a ped point of view as I've always found them easy to navigate from both a car and bicycle point of view.

Interesting comment regarding speed cameras, which again I don't really understand, as they are a direct revenue raiser therefore might be expensive but will come with a payback period. Pretty sure one on Alderman's Hill could pay for itself in less than a year!!
Colin Younger's Avatar
Colin Younger posted a reply #4002 01 Aug 2018 17:25
I've asked council officers where the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood project has got to. This is their answer which I received today.

The draft Quieter Neighbourhood report will passed to the relevant Cabinet Member very shortly and we anticipate a decision on the scheme within the next few weeks. Decisions will be announced via the Cycle Enfield newsletter to which you can subscribe via the Cycle Enfield website www.cycleenfield.co.uk

Share this article

 Clare Rogers of Better Streets for Enfield defends the Quieter Neighbourhood schemes against attacks by opponents of Cycle Enfield. (Republished from the Better Streets website.)

SOGL Fernleigh Road e1510145469749The ‘lucky people’ are the residents of the affected area

‘Save Our Green Lanes’ (SOGL) member Helen Osman has been busy attacking two of the Quieter Neighbourhood plans in her newsletter N21 Online. SOGL are now distributing leaflets to households in both the Fernleigh Road and Fox Lane areas, encouraging a negative response to the consultations. What are they upset about? 

Fighting for the status quo

From the start of Enfield’s ‘Mini Holland’ programme, Save Our Green Lanes have seemed determined to keep things exactly as they are. Just as they fought change in the form of cycle lanes and renovated town centres along the A105, now they’re fighting change, however slight, to residential areas. And it’s always easy to stir up opposition to change. In one of their forums a woman wrote, “Our residential roads are just fine as they are. We don’t need 20mph zones and speed humps ruining our streets!”

But to us at Better Streets, the status quo seems very broken indeed. The status quo in our neighbourhoods is to breathe dirty air, to jump out of our skin as a speedster booms past, to witness collisions, to not know our neighbours and to fear riding a bicycle on any road. Seeing children play on the streets is a long-distant memory, except at organised play street events that close the road to traffic. We think it’s time to rethink what has become normal and give streets back to people again.

More congestion?

Helen claims that the plans will “create even more congestion on many roads”. She seems to be basing this on some mild measures such as banning a couple of left turns off Station Road for limited times of the week, a ‘point no entry’ on Stonard Road preventing drivers rat running down it in one direction only, and some one-way streets. Here’s the Better Streets feedback on the Fernleigh Road area plans.

It seems that Helen’s concern is not for the people who live on Stonard and other streets, but for those who’d like use them as a shortcut in their cars. Her assumption is that all residential roads should be open to traffic to take the pressure off main roads. In a way this is understandable – it seems logical, and we’re all used to taking shortcuts where possible. It’s the status quo. But At Better Streets we’re campaigning to stop rat running through residential areas; all the evidence shows that this actually reduces traffic overall, as well as opening streets to active travel for all. In many European countries that is the status quo.

The school run

In the Fernleigh Road area, Helen argues that the proposals will mean “parents in three schools will be badly affected, St Pauls, Palmers Green and Keble” … “Doesn’t anybody responsible for this scheme understand just how stressful it is having to get your child to school or nursery and then get yourself off to work?”

She presumably means that parents driving their children to school will be badly affected – and therefore access to these residential streets by car should be made as easy as possible. But right now, what’s hindering access to these schools by car is the sheer volume of other parents’ cars. Traffic on the school run is the bane of our streets. We need a way to reduce cars on the school run, not facilitate it.

Better Streets is fully in favour of banning cars from school streets at school run hours. Where ‘school streets’ have been created in Edinburgh, walking and cycling rates have gone through the roof – less convenient driving and less traffic on the roads mean that parents are happier about children travelling to school under their own steam. For parents going onwards to work, why the assumption that they have to drive? Often public transport and combined with walking and cycling are better modes to get to work. If only those parents who had to drive did so, we’d see a lot less congestion.

Consultation, consultation, consultation

SOGL can’t seem to fault the plans for the Fox Lane neighbourhood (here’s our response to Fox Lane ), so with both areas, they are falling back on a favourite tactic: attacking the consultation process. Helen criticised the Fernleigh Road QN for not consulting widely enough (which apparently meant not consulting those who don’t live in the affected area, but benefit from rat running through it).

What about the Fox Lane QN consultation? At over three weeks it’s a long enough period legally, it’s being advertised in the local press as it should legally (giving residents an opportunity to object), and like Fernleigh Road QN every affected household has received a leaflet. As one long-standing resident of the Fox Lane area commented:

“…we have seen an extraordinary level of hard and soft data capture, perception surveys and in particular 250 locals who volunteered to become engaged in helping find resolution [to the problems of traffic speed and volume in the area]. [In 2014] two workshops, with say 50 attendees each, worked towards an optimal solution.

This is possibly the most researched and widely consulted residential traffic area in London. What we certainly don’t need is more and longer consultation; now we are on the cusp of very long overdue action. It might not be perfect, at this stage, but it will be better… than what we have been forced to live with.”

Please respond!

The Quieter Neighbourhoods programme is not perfect and will not solve all traffic problems overnight, but it’s a big step in the right direction. Let’s engage with the council, support the process and push for a new status quo that is much better for everyone’s health and well-being.

Please respond to the Fernleigh Road QN consultation by Sunday 12 November and the Fox Lane QN by Sunday 26 November.

Clare Rogers

Log in to comment

Neil Littman's Avatar
Neil Littman posted a reply #3387 01 Dec 2017 19:08
Hi, I just wanted to respond to the comments with a few points.

The reason why leaflets were distributed around the areas in Fernleigh and Fox Lane was because the council sent out almost nothing to residents myself included, apart from a small square card advising us that a QN consultation was on the way.

Not everybody logs into the internet to download information either. There are a lot of people in the area without internet access. It was some time before it was discovered that many households had received nothing in the way of information and none of the schools in the area knew about the schemes.

All this is regardless of the pros and cons of the QN schemes which in principle I think are a good idea.

It is the details of them that are not so good and many of the proposals will either not work or cause more issues outside those areas due to displacement of traffic. I have seen the arguments in Walthamstow that many journeys simply stopped and that is also entirely possible.

As for using the local press to inform people, what local press? I live near the Fernleigh scheme and there is only one newspaper which used to be put through our letterboxes but no longer arrives.

One important factor is that these schemes are being rushed through before the full impact of the cycle lanes is being monitored which will be at least three months. Would it be more sensible to wait until all this work has settled down and we can see exactly how traffic is flowing.

We already have a potential issue that QN will NOT solve which is the narrowing of Palmers Green high street to the point where buses will hold up traffic and increase fuel emissions which will impact on the health of people using all forms of transport as well as pedestrians. You can live a few streets away in a quiet area then be confronted by the exact opposite. This is already affecting emergency vehicles which cannot get past the present level of traffic.

Think there are a lot of different things going on in the area that are already having negative impacts on the quality of life so would hold back on promoting the QN schemes until we know the full extent of everything else.

For the record at our local residents association meeting last night over 95% of those attending were against the scheme. Assume that local residents view must count for something. Also expressed was the view that the council have no wish to engage with the local community on virtually any matters any more. One councillor called our residents association a 'political organisation' It is the same as it has ever been, not aligned to any political party.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3388 02 Dec 2017 18:05
I can’t speak for Fernleigh but do know in the Fox Lane QN there was at least 4 (council) door dropped items over the analysis period, including the opportunity to partake in two surveys, two workshops and this very recent consultation. The first door dropped item resulted in 500+ responses, 250 volunteers to assist and an exchange in the local press (it does exist) so I guess there was evidence of community traction.
As for rushing through because much is already changing: let’s go wild and assume there’s a 50% drop off in traffic volume in Fox Lane streets. In many cases that would still be well above what research has deemed to be local community healthy, whereas if things go the other way and volumes increase then more the need for QN features. The South West of the borough is a long acknowledged traffic major issue spot (look at past council plans).
Looking at air quality, we’re fortunate to have a decent bus network but the UK is covered with bus routes where it stops and so do you when following in a car – or frequently where there is the overtaking option, the bus waits forever until some kind soul lets it back out into the flow. So it’s a much faster pull away from stops now, good news for bus passengers for a change. Take away a line of single people driving their cars and pop them all into the large capacity bus and we would find a miraculous increase in available road capacity for those who actually need it. But on Air quality, sitting stationary and the large levels of brake and tyre particulates do not occur and with more modern vehicles the engine will temporarily lick off so dealing with gaseous emissions too. Just perhaps stationary traffic is actually less polluting in such circumstances? (No one will yet know, the brake / tyre wear research data is itself only very recently off the press.)
As for working with the council, I would say I’ve had more than my share over the last decade and more, both parties and many different officer functions. What I’ve always found is that if you have a decent idea, articulate it, treat people as humans, often with more detailed experience and knowledge in areas than yourself, then you can get great traction and progress where it’s possible. I've also seen the opposite approach - and results, some rather recently.
David Hughes's Avatar
David Hughes posted a reply #3389 03 Dec 2017 01:38
This is not going to be very well put because it's close to 1.0am, so I may come back to it on Monday next (5/12/17).

Karl has dealt with many of the issues raised by Neil Littman, but there is one issue at the heart of this: the Council's avowed intention of encouraging people to walk, bike, or use public transport, especially for short journeys, and very especially driver-only short journeys. In addition it worries me that in a crowded city drivers mind waiting behind a bus; it happens in any city. Of course some drivers may be starting or finishing a long journey, but when city roads are crowded it is usually at what we tend to call the rush-hour, i.e. mainly short journeys to work and back, or to some event like a football match. Why not walk, bike or bus.

Put another way, my way, why do many people put their car on just as automatically as they put their shoes on? I live one of the forthcoming Quieter Neighbourhoods (QN), and I see few walkers or bikers with the exception of parents walking their children to or from school (what I can't tell, is whether they have simply found it necessary to park quite a long way from school and walked past my window for the last stage of their journey). Recall: it was and is the intention of the council to encourage drivers to walk, cycle or use public transport.

And finally for tonight: QNs are about creating better places to live, not relieving traffic pressure. Of course the creation of nicer places to live will put further pressure on drivers to consider alternatives, but why should drivers be favoured over residents, and particularly over children's freedoms around their home.

The issues we have with cars in 2017 have largely come about because, with best of intentions, the concern has been to keep traffic flowing with the consequence that drivers have come to expect, often demand priority. That strategy has hit a brick wall with all sorts problems, which when I'm more awake I could list, but there is one emerging very clearly:drivers' sense of entitlement. Most drivers expect decisions to suit their preferences but that has to stop which is now recognised in many countries.

Really things have to different in future.
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3409 04 Dec 2017 11:08
" over 95% of those attending were against the scheme"

Well I never, local residents against a propposal. That's why NIMBY has been part of the English lexicon so many decades!

NB: objection will never be accompanied by viable/sensible alternative.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3410 04 Dec 2017 13:51
Again, since WHRA geographically doesn’t cover the Fox Lane QN, we have to presume the 95% against refers to the Fernleigh QN – which is within WHRA boundaries. But since the Fernleigh QN was apparently started in response to residents’ concerns within that specific area, why is this particular group –set up to represent residents’ views - so against it? Makes you wonder just what is going on.

Share this article

better streets for enfield logoBetter Streets for Enfield have posted some comments about the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood proposals on their website (republished below).  These are not yet finalised, they may take on board any useful comments.

Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood plans

The Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood consultation is open, showing some innovative and promising ideas. You can see the plans and respond here, while the technical drawings are here – the closing date is 26 November.

fox lane qn consultation map smallerThe map in the Fox Lane QN consultation leaflet

 As Better Streets our response isn’t set in stone, so feel free to contact us with your views. Here’s the short version:

We welcome…

  • The area-wide approach, with planters on every street entrance to signal that drivers are entering a residential area
  • The (unofficial) 20mph zone
  • The continuous footways on Aldermans Hill
  • The traffic ban at school run hours for Cannon Road
  • Reduced traffic in the Bourne Avenue area with point no entries
  • Sinusoidal speed humps and road narrowing to calm traffic.

We are concerned…

…that these measures on their own will not prevent drivers from cutting through our residential streets. Without a reduction in traffic volume we are unlikely to reach our goal of increased walking and cycling. Therefore, we want to see the council monitoring the effects on traffic speed and volume for 3–6 months after implementation. If it hasn’t produce the desired effect of less traffic, we would like the council to trial more effective measures. We welcome the statement that the planters could be repositioned to help further reduce traffic speeds/volumes.

Read on for the longer (draft) version as a more detailed response:

The Better Streets approach to Quieter Neighbourhoods

As Better Streets for Enfield, one of our end goals is the removal of through traffic from residential areas to create low-traffic neighbourhoods. This will promote all-age active travel, discourage short journeys by car and allow residents of all ages to enjoy their streets as community space. This ambition is in line with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and healthy streets/liveable neighbourhoods approach. We will respond to each of the Quieter Neighbourhood consultations with this end goal in mind, and while we recognise that it can’t be achieved overnight, we welcome any commitment or steps in this direction.

Continuous footways from the Triangle to Aldermans Hill zebra crossing

We welcome this design to signal priority to pedestrians over the side roads on a busy stretch of Aldermans Hill, especially train passengers. However, we’re concerned that since these side roads are also well-used through routes, there will be lots of vehicle movement over them and that not all drivers will respect pedestrians’ right of way. Therefore it will be essential to make the turns very tight to keep driving slow, perhaps with bell bollards or planters. Such measures are not shown in the technical drawings.

We are also concerned that the proposed design, with painted give way markings on the Aldermans Hill side, may undermine the visual priority for pedestrians. Surely the more common design of the footpath paving continuing across the junction without painted markings is clearer?

Planters as width restrictions near the entrance of every side road

We welcome this innovative measure for its potential to slow drivers as they enter roads; to signal that drivers are entering a residential neighbourhood; and to green streets, possibly allowing for community gardening as well. We note that the whole area or cell has been taken into account, not just individual streets, which is very welcome.

It may be worth putting something on the pavement, level with planters, to prevent drivers mounting the kerb and to restrict access by the largest vehicles that frequently and inappropriately use these streets. A second smaller planter or a large natural boulder (no maintenance required) could be used.

However, we don’t think this measure on its own will discourage drivers from cutting through our streets, or necessarily reduce driver speeds along their length (unless more planters are introduced at intervals, if residents agree to lose parking). And without a reduction in traffic volume and speed we are unlikely to reach our goal of increased walking and cycling. Therefore, we want to see the council monitoring the effects on traffic speed and volume for 3–6 months after implementation. If it hasn’t produce the desired effect of less traffic, we would like the council to trial more effective measures. We welcome the statement that the planters could be repositioned to help further reduce traffic speeds/volumes.

Speed humps

Sinusoidal speed humps are welcome where they’re being introduced, notably on Fox Lane. The absence of a sixth speed hump to the eastern end of Fox Lane is surprising given the speed levels seen here from vehicles moving in both directions. Ideally, we would like to see more streets in the neighbourhood receive speed humps – if not now, then when funding allows. We are slightly sceptical about the optical illusion speed humps planned for Devonshire Road in terms of slowing down the habitual speeders on this one-way street. Residents complain of speeding as a daily nuisance and may perceive this option as inadequate given the scale of the problem. Again, the effects of this measure should be monitored.

Unofficial 20mph zone

We welcome the introduction of an unofficial 20mph zone as a first step towards slowing vehicle speeds. To reinforce the message, the council could issue households with ‘Twenty’s plenty’ vinyl stickers for people to add to their wheelie bins, to help reinforce the message:

wheelie bin with 20mph notice

However, ultimately we would like to see an official, enforceable 20mph zone implemented throughout the neighbourhood in this area and all built-up areas of Enfield (although removing through traffic from residential areas is a higher priority for us).

Point no entries

We welcome these traffic reduction measures for the Bourne Avenue area, though we hope it will not add to the already heavy through traffic on The Mall.

School street for St Monica’s primary school

We warmly welcome this scheme – we hope it will not only boost walking and cycling rates for St Monica’s families and improve safety on the street itself at school run times, but provide a model for school streets elsewhere in the borough.

Finally, it bears repeating – while we support these proposals overall, we view them in themselves as unlikely to truly deliver a ‘Quieter Neighbourhood’ that is quiet, where walking and cycling rates rise, and car use falls. They do not, in their current form, address the heavy through traffic on streets such as Old Park Road, The Mall, Caversham Avenue, or Amberley Road. Our support is therefore based on the assumption that if these measures do, as we fear, prove relatively ineffective on their own, further steps will be taken to create true Quieter Neighbourhoods.

Log in to comment

Tristan Lockheart's Avatar
Tristan Lockheart posted a reply #3348 19 Nov 2017 15:14
The leaflet says drivers would be "encouraged" to give way to pedestrians on the continuous footways. The sort of drivers that we are often faced with are nowhere near as cooperative enough as that! I can easily see a child stepping out in front a vehicle, thinking that they are on the pavement, thus getting hit.
Larry Roberts's Avatar
Larry Roberts posted a reply #3353 22 Nov 2017 16:42
Yes, my thoughts too! Continuous footways will not encourage pedestrians to look before they step out into the road...there seems to be a growing culture (exacerbated by the digital age) that pedestrians now just step out into the road without due care and attention
Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3354 22 Nov 2017 18:31

Larry Roberts wrote: Continuous footways will not encourage pedestrians to look before they step out into the road...there seems to be a growing culture (exacerbated by the digital age) that pedestrians now just step out into the road without due care and attention


It's true that there are many pedestrians who wander across roads without due care and attention, endangering themselves and also causing a nuisance for drivers.

However, in the context we're discussing here - a driver turning into a side road - the obligation is for the driver to wait for the pedestrian. According to the highway code when walking across the end of a side road pedestrians have the right of way and drivers entering the road are obliged to give way if a pedestrian has set a foot on the road. A pedestrian would be foolhardy to do so without looking first, but would be in the right if hit by a car and the driver would be in the wrong. From the driver's point of view therefore, the sensible thing to do is to anticipate that the pedestrian will get to the road first and may wish to exercise their right of way and thus the driver should stop and wait for the pedestrian.

Continuous footways can make it clearer to drivers that they don't have the right of way, but they need to be obvious enough, ie be wide enough (Copenhagen crossings) and have a conspicuously different surfacing than the road - preferably paving stones of the same type as used for the rest of the pedestrian footway.
David Hughes's Avatar
David Hughes posted a reply #3355 22 Nov 2017 21:59
I just want to repeat and re-emphasise Basil's point: drivers should/must be looking out for pedestrians rather than swinging into side streets and expecting people on foot to keep out of their way. It's driver's responsibility to do 'the looking out' and giving way.

To me the fact that most drivers seem to expect walkers to give way reflects my constant refrain of drivers' sense of entitlement. No wonder that over my lifetime kids have been swept of the streets like so many autumn leaves.

Of course, as Basil pointed out, pedestrians have to keep a look out, because even the best and most considerate of drivers can make a mistake. But, common courtesy apart, adult pedestrians should exert their rights when possible/safe, otherwise driver sense of entitlement in urban areas will continue to grow. This may hold up the stream of traffic on the main road, but then walkers have as much right to complete their journey comfortably, and on time, as drivers.

I note that Haringay Council is installing/has installed steep-sided tables at the mouth of some side streets. At a guess this is partly because at some times of day short queues of walkers were forming at the kerb side unable to cross the side road. And steep-sided tables do encourage drivers to slow down.

It's a little off the subject, but I think that a factor in all this is the number of cars on the road, very many of them driver only, and seeking to rat-run - thereby wanting to turn off main roads more often. Which in some way seems to support Enfield Council's decision to install cycle lanes in order to encourage people travelling short, driver only journeys to get on a bike.
Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3356 23 Nov 2017 00:09
The deadline for submitting your views on the Fox Lane QN plans is this Sunday, 26th November.

I'm very disappointed to find that the same organisations that campaign so vigorously against the cycle lanes are taking an equally negative attitude towards Quieter Neighbourhoods.

One of the points they make is that the QN consultations should start only after cycle lanes have been finished, in order to assess the effects. But if they do affect side streets (and I don't believe they will), it means that measures to limit traffic through those streets will be even more needed than they already are.

How could anyone object to speed humps on Fox Lane, a very bendy and hilly residential street with multiple crossroads along which cars career well in excess of safe speeds and where many crashes have occurred?

Objection: Restricting the width of entrances to roads off Aldermans Hill will mean that cars have to slow or stop before turning into those roads. Well yes, the whole point is to make it less easy for drivers to rat-run though the Lakes Estate and to make it safer for pedestrians to cross side streets - after all they have the right of way when crossing those streets and drivers are obliged to wait for them to cross.

Objection: The scheme will do nothing to stop speeding on Aldermans Hill and Bourne Hill. Well, of course not, because those main roads aren't within the quieter neighbourhoods. They certainly do need anti-speeding measures, so why not propose some instead of merely being negative?
Colin Younger's Avatar
Colin Younger posted a reply #3357 23 Nov 2017 01:09
On the point of traffic on Aldermans Hill and traffic turning off it, the potential issue is that unrestricted traffic running along Aldermans Hill might shunt cars stopping to turn left in to the QN. The extension of the pavements across the road ends will increase the propensity of pedestrians not to pause before crossing the road and reduce drivers' reaction times. This is not about the rights and wrongs of drivers and pedestrians nor about the claimed sense of entitlement of drivers, nor an objection to allowing pedestrians to cross, it's just based on observation of the existing situation and an extrapolation of potential risks. I don't know if notices along AH to warn of the new road layouts, such as those which appeared when the new crossing near to Old Park Road was installed might help, though I would prefer traffic calming measures along AH.

On the delay issue, the initial consultation workshop was based on QN being introduced before the cycle routes. This was questioned by some attending since it seemed more sensible to wait for traffic patterns to settle down. Those running the consultation said, no we are going ahead, but there could be trials of various temporary systems which could be adjusted as experience was gained. The scheme was then delayed, and the explanation was.... time was needed to see how the cycle lanes worked. Well, it was delayed, but not by enough to see how the cycle enfield changes worked for QNs, and there is little sign of trial measures.

On the subject of rat running, I don't see how the continuous pavement will really help. Bad drivers will just accelerate after slowing down to turn in, just as they do now. What's needed are ways of slowing or inhibiting traffic further along these connecting roads, and changes to the intersections with Fox Lane. I seem to recall workshop suggestions of various ways this latter could help with rat runs and speeds along Fox Lane.

I also seem to detect a general tendency to assume that car drivers don't walk or use pubic transport and therefore are unable to raise concerns about aspects of the scheme. We should as a community try to avoid stereotyping one another.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3358 23 Nov 2017 09:15
Strikes me that if there is a “shunt risk” because a car in front is slowing / has stopped to turn into a side street then the core issue is not with the road engineering or layout but rather with the following driver. I’d also hazard a guess that “Copenhagen” crossing data is fully available to our local planners who will have assessed the risk to pedestrians crossing the street - who of course have priority over cars turning in at such junctions once they are on their way. If only I often think.
Certainly the expected QN rollout was more than upset by the two year or so delay caused by the anti-change campaign and things only started to move ahead when their final legal case didn’t succeed. The original programme did not surprisingly get impacted as a consequence. Personally I’m happy there is now, finally, some apparent momentum, for whatever the changes on the Lakes and Meadway as a result of the A105 cycle lanes, if any, it will be over time in what is a medium / long term transformation programme and I suspect will be more at the margin than a fundamental change in the shorter period – ie too many local streets will still see too many rat runners with a large number driving too fast and often illegally. That’s the core issue in this element. Any delay is exactly that.
Colin Younger's Avatar
Colin Younger posted a reply #3359 23 Nov 2017 10:24
I’ll try to make this my last comment, since we seem to have reached both the end of the consultation period and a point where more heat than light is being generated. There’s a risk that this becomes an Orwellian “two wheels (or legs) good, four wheels bad” when their owners may be one and the same person at different times! I also find it unacceptable for reasonable analysis of the proposals to be equated with opposition.

I don’t know why Aldermans Hill isn’t part of quieter neighbourhoods since it is inextricably linked to problems within the cell. Is it a road TfL “owns” and therefore beyond LBE’s remit?

And lastly on the “shunt” risk, it’s no good simply blaming the driver for speeding; that’s too late if an accident has happened. The whole principle of the QN measures as I understand it is that you need a degree of highway engineering to enforce changes in behaviour. Councillor Anderson explained at this week’s Southgate Green Ward forum that it’s one thing to declare an area a 20mph zone, quite another to be able to enforce it, and therefore the need for material measures such as are being proposed. I just don’t think there are enough of them, or that they are necessarily properly distributed.

When all the comments are in, it will be interesting to see what changes are made, and whether and to what extent there are subsequent adjustments. I understand from the forum that there is a contingency in the budget for this. There is a hopeful possibility noted in the Neighbourhood Zone section of the consultation leaflet about possible flexibility in the positioning and numbers of planters.

Share this article

Details of  proposed measures to create the Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood were published this morning.  Like last week's plans for the Fernleigh Road QN, they take a holistic approach to reducing vehicle speeds along side roads throughout the large area covered, which stretches from Palmers Green Triangle nearly all the way to Southgate Circus.

Some of the traffic calming measures are familiar from the three previous QN proposals:  speed humps (confined to Fox Lane itself), road narrowing, point no entries and a school street (affecting St Monica's).  However, the consultation introduces some novel ideas.

All roads leading into the QN would have "entry points" consisting of a planter with low-level planting placed in the road. These planters will have neighbourhood signs to encourage drivers to stay below 20mph. The planters would require drivers entering the area to give way to those leaving.  All turnings off Fox Lane would also be treated with entry points.  The intention is evidently to make using the area as a shortcut between Aldermans Hill and Bourne Hill a less attractive option for drivers.

The other novel idea is the use of "3D-effect road markings", also referred to as "3D speed cushions".  These use a "trompe l'oeil" effect to make a flat surface appear to be curved and have reportedly proved effective in reducing speeds in other parts of London.  They would be introduced as an experiment in Devonshire Road.

The deadline for responding to the consultation is 26th November.

fox lane qn consultation map smallerClick on the map to enlarge

NEIGHBOURHOOD ZONE

fox lane qn 20mph planterResidents expressed a wish to see the area covered by a 20mph zone to address their concerns about the speed and volume of through traffic in the area. However, they also did not want a lot of traffic calming features. To respond to this we propose to create entry points to the area indicating to drivers that this is a residential area. Each entry point will consist of a planter with low-level planting placed in the road. These planters will have neighbourhood signs which will encourage drivers to stay below 20mph. These planters will require drivers entering the area to give way to those leaving. Planters will be placed at junctions within the existing double yellow line areas so will not reduce parking. Planters will be maintained by the Council, but opportunities for community gardening can be explored. The location of the planters will remain flexible and we will monitor their placement to gain a greater understanding of the impact they may have. This could lead to trials where additional planters are placed along the length of residential streets and/or the existing planters are re-positioned to help further reduce traffic speeds/volume. Any additional measures such as these would see further community engagement.

ROAD NARROWING

fox lane qn road narrowingNarrowing the road helps to reduce speeds, in several streets in the Fox Lane area we will reduce the width of the road by widening existing parking bays. Where marked parking bays already exist, we propose to widen these further to help reduce speeds in these streets.

3D EFFECT ROAD MARKINGS

fox lane qn 3d road markingsTo reduce speeds on Devonshire Road (which is a one-way street) we propose to trial the use of painted 3D speed cushion road markings. In other London boroughs these have reduced speeds by several miles per hour without resorting to physical measures.

POINT NO ENTRY

fox lane qn point no entryA point no-entry is used to prevent traffic travelling past a defined point in one direction while allowing traffic to continue in the opposite direction. A point no-entry is usually formed using a kerbed buildout to narrow the road, which may result in the loss of one or two on-street parking spaces. This is being proposed in response to residents’ concerns about the volume of through traffic using Bourne Avenue and Meadway.

SPEED HUMP

fox lane qn speed humpA speed hump is a traditional traffic calming feature used to slow traffic. Humps are typically round-topped and stretch across the width of the road. In response to residents’ concerns, we will be using a particular type of speed hump which is better for cyclists, and reduces noise and vibration to nearby residents. We are proposing to introduce speed humps in Fox Lane to ensure that our traffic management measures do not result in increased speeds.

CONTINUOUS FOOTWAYS

fox lane qn continuous footwayContinuous footways are made of materials similar to that of the surrounding footpath and vehicles are encouraged to give way to pedestrians who are using the footpath. This series of continuous footways will create an improved environment for pedestrians, linking the high street to the zebra crossing which provides access into Broomfield Park.

SCHOOL STREET

fox lane qn speed humpA school street reduces high levels of congestion outside schools by closing the road to everyone but residents at specific times. The proposal is to close Cannon Road between 8.30 - 9.30am and 2.15 - 3.30pm to avoid traffic in the front of St Monica’s School.

Links

Online questionnaire

Detailed drawings

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3294 01 Nov 2017 15:23
Now we know, for detail of the Fox Lane area Quieter Neighbourhood proposal is available ( www.cycleenfiel...e-your-say ). There is also a large area map being door dropped. At first glance it would appear that the proposal is essentially in line with the themes of the two workshops held for residents to surface issues and then work together to develop a common solution. Perhaps this final step is not 100% ideal for some, me included, for I can still envisage the risk of unpleasant volumes of traffic and high speed characters on the area’s streets, but no amount of engineering outside of the total banning of traffic will stop that all too common habit.
More green would be good to help break long vistas of tarmac; perhaps trees in the planter boxes and the opportunity for even more planters, and perhaps pocket parks, in street areas where working experience of the plan shows volumes and velocity of through traffic remain at inappropriate levels.
But after 30 years or so of waiting, to finally see a Council tabling positive steps to redress the balance between residents of a street and through traffic is extremely heartening. And of course if the impact unfortunately turns out to be pretty negligible in practice, with large wagons and speeding cars continuing, resulting in residents then pushing hard for very significant through-traffic restrictions, then such drivers would only have themselves to blame.
Bill Linton's Avatar
Bill Linton posted a reply #3295 01 Nov 2017 15:46
To emphasise the problems from speeding cars in Fox Lane, there was an accident yesterday outside my house. I didn't see it, but it isn't hard to reconstruct what happened: someone coming down the hill overtaking - doubtless at speed - where he shouldn't, forcing another car coming up the hill to swerve onto the pavement, onto the paved-over 'garden' and through the low wall separating the property from my neightbours. I wonder whether he may not have been going too fast too, given how far he got before he stopped - 7 or 8 feet through the wall, carrying a substantial lump of masonry into the bushes.

Happily no-one was hurt except for some minor injuries to the driver of the swerving car, but the wall was demolished and the car had to be ferried away on a lorry looking very sorry for itself. If there had been anyone on the pavement at the time they'd have been toast (and this was only a couple of hours before there were gangs of trick-or-treaters roaming the streets). A friend was hit in a similar swerve-onto-the-pavement-to-avoid-the-oncoming-maniac incident a few years ago, broke 3 limbs and was lucky to survive; afterwards she looked 10 years older. (That wasn't on the Lakes Estate).

Needless to say the other driver made himself scarce, though he did stop for a minute before driving off. That gave a witness time to get his number.
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3297 01 Nov 2017 16:00
Wrote on whole response earlier but it got lost when the page was updated! Thanks for all the extra info though.

In short:

Neighbourhood zones I'm struggling to visualise. If that picture were the bottom of Ulleswater Road, per se, how the heck does a car turn off Alderman's Hill safely?! Also increased inconvenience & danger for cyclists to try navigate when turning off the same - eastbound will require breaking almost to a halt to turn off, at a point cars already drive to fast and close-pass. I could genuinely see a fatality.

Similar on road narrowing. Terrible for cyclsits as Wightman Road on the Haringay Ladder is testament to. Cyclists get squeezed by motor traffic which has no interest in being 'calmed' unless something bigger is heading the other direction.

Like the 3D though - love the ped xing example in Iceland recently.

School street - not sure the point. It's a dead end and most of the congestion is suffered on Conway Road and Cannon Hill - which will now suffer even more as a result.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3298 01 Nov 2017 16:53
Picking up Bill Linton’s horror example and adding to my post of the proposals fitting with the earlier residents’ workshop theme, it’s also worth remembering the very large Fox Lane residents meeting where a unanimous vote agreed that traffic in our area simply went “too fast”. The (Fox Lane) proposals are in line with that too. Roughly a decade since that vote, little has changed regarding traffic speed issues as the Fox Lane garden wall Bill highlights will confirm.
Colin Younger's Avatar
Colin Younger posted a reply #3299 01 Nov 2017 18:09
Unfortunately none of the proposals reduce traffic speeds on Aldermans Hill or on a number of the roads between Fox Lane and Aldermans Hill. It may be that Enfield can’t impose controls along Aldermans Hill, but they can surely do more on other roads.

I don’t think that signs or limits to access at the ends of these roads will prevent cars accelerating along them, particularly where there is a clear end to end view. Why don’t Lakeside, Grovelands and Old Park Roads warrant traffic calming measures other than at their end? Ulleswater has three road narrowings and Derwent one; are speeds so much worse there? It may be that the way ahead is with planters at various points which can be adjusted as experience is gained.

There seems likely be a problem for eastbound traffic on Aldermans Hill wanting to turn left and negotiating the newly narrowed junctions. The plans don’t make clear, at least to me, the physical relationship between continuous footways (which narrow junctions) and “neighbourhood zone” furniture (which also narrow the roads) at the south ends of Lakeside, Grovelands and Old Park Roads. I wonder how these will interact and affect traffic?

The traffic island at the junction with Lakeside already makes a left turn problematic; it’s common to have to wait in Aldermans Hill when vehicles are exiting Lakeside and the need to negotiate the narrowed junctions will make it riskier given the speed of Aldermans Hill traffic. It might help if there was less parking near the road junction.

As a matter of interest, the traffic monitoring device on Lakeside Road had it sensors cut through soon after it was installed. I wonder whether this was the only sabotage and whether it affected the outcomes?
David Hughes's Avatar
David Hughes posted a reply #3310 03 Nov 2017 23:59
More later, but in relation to traffic speed on Aldermans Hill (Colin Younger November 1) a speed table was constructed there just east of Ulleswater Road, but an incoming Conservative Council removed it.

More on the FLQN soon.
David Hughes's Avatar
David Hughes posted a reply #3311 04 Nov 2017 14:08
Karl B. makes a strong point in highlighting that these proposals represent a very welcome watershed, but on the patch that I know well I'm a little doubtful about Conway and Harlech Roads because they are wide, have long sight lines and, on Conway at least, very high speeds are being reached now. I'm also a bit doubtful about whether the changes to Ulleswater Road will stop rat-running from Cranley Road, St. Georges Road, and other roads to the north of Fox Lane to Aldermans Hill. And, picking up on Colin Younger's point, I think something should be done to slow traffic speed on Alderman's Hill especially at the shop end, but also to enable use of the park by kids.

I'm fascinated by the difficulty of finding positions for 'build-outs' which is largely a problem of too many cars/too many concreted front gardens to make personal parking space. It would be a major task to reverse this situation, but people might like to try owning smaller cars (very many journeys are driver-only anyway), and hiring a larger/faster car for long journeys. That would probably be cheaper anyway, and make parking elsewhere easier.

And here's a thought: the widespread use of cars in cities and towns is under pressure worldwide. Perhaps we only have to wait.
John Phillips's Avatar
John Phillips posted a reply #3312 05 Nov 2017 11:06
I agree its good to see a holistic approach being taken to to the Lakes Estate's traffic problems which are twofold: excessive speed and sheer volume of 'rat-running'. Colin is right, these proposals will do little to reduce speeds on the link roads between Aldermans Hill and Fox Lane - many drivers see a 'straight' and cannot resist putting their foot down. I am frequently woken in the middle of the night by loud vehicles in Lakeside Road.
The recent huge increase in rat-running (now about 90% of traffic) predates the current road works on Green Lanes and I suspect is more to do with sat-navs. However the changes to Green Lanes will undoubtedly make this problem worse. I cannot see how the proposals will reduce the volume of traffic.
Lakeside, Grovelands and Old Park Roads, the preferred rat-runs, will get welcome pavement extensions yet Ulleswater with less rat-running gets 3 constrictions which seem far more likely to divert drivers into other roads. Why the imbalance? Am I missing something?
All roads have excellent planters at each end except Lakeside which, despite heavy traffic, has only one. Why? What is the rationale? It was suggested it would make it awkward for drivers but that, surely, is the point. It would be great to have an explanation for these plans.
I really do welcome these proposals but I fear the noise and fumes that now pervade my once quiet residential street will persist.

Share this article

The third set of Quieter Neighbourhood proposals relates to the "Fernleigh Road" QN - the entire area bounded by Hoppers Road, Station Road, Green Lanes and Bourne Hill. Hoppers Road does not just form a boundary, but would itself be part of the QN. There would also be measures to reduce traffic in two roads to the north of Station Road.

The consultation is open until 12th November.

In contrast to the approach taken to the Wolves Lane and Connaught Gardens QNs, the proposals are clearly aimed at calming the entire area rather than tackling a few individual streets where there are problems. The calming would take the form of speed reduction measures and some anti-rat running measures.

The council is proposing an area-wide 20mph zone. On roads where current traffic speeds are higher, there would be physical measures to slow cars down - speed humps or road narrowing - in some cases residents will be invited to choose between the two methods. Elsewhere, 20mph roundels would be painted on the road.

Anti-rat running measures comprise a "point no-entry" in Stonard Road, one-waying of Meadowcroft Road and Eaton Park Road and banned left turns during rush hours out of Station Road into Ringwood Way and Radcliffe Road (though how these would be enforced is not explained).

The map has been turned on its side to fit mobile phone screens better, so the symbols are all on on their side. To see them the right way up use the links at the end of this article.

Fernleigh Road Quieter Neighbourhoods Proposals

fernleigh rd qn mapThe map does not show some existing traffic calming measures20 MPH ZONE
An area-wide reduction in the speed limit that requires zone entry signs and possibly traffic calming features (such as speed humps) unless vehicle speeds are already low.
Many residents of the area have complained about speeding traffic so we are proposing a 20mph zone across the entire area.
Where speeds are already low we will paint 20mph roundels on the road. However, where current speeds are higher it is necessary to introduce some form of physical traffic calming.

BANNED TURNS
We are proposing to ban traffic from turning left from Station Road into both Ringwood Way and Radcliffe Road between 7:30-9:30am and 5:00-7:00pm. Although this will also affect residents, we are responding to complaints about the amount of traffic using these roads to avoid the new traffic lights on Green Lanes

ONE WAY STREET
In response to residents concerns, we are proposing to make both Meadowcroft Road and Eaton Park Road oneway streets to prevent traffic cutting through to avoid the traffic lights at the junction of Green Lanes and Bourne Hill.

20 MPH ROUNDELS
This is a large “20” painted on the road surrounded by a white circle to remind drivers of the 20mph speed limit. We can use these instead of physical traffic calming in roads where the existing speeds are already close to 20mph.

POINT NO ENTRY
A point no-entry is used to prevent traffic travelling past a defined point in one direction while allowing traffic to continue in the opposite direction.
A point no-entry is usually formed using a kerbed buildout to narrow the road, which may result in the loss of one or two on-street parking spaces.
This is being proposed in response to residents’ concerns about the volume of through traffic using Stonard Road.

ROAD NARROWING
Narrowing the road helps to reduce speeds, in several streets in the Fernleigh Road area we will reduce the width of the road by marking wider parking bays. This will reduce the number of speed humps that we use and minimise the impact on residents.

HOPPERS ROAD
Hoppers Road already has traffic calming measures and we are only proposing to replace one set of ‘speed cushions’ (between Arlow Road and Arundel Gardens) with a newstyle road hump and to add a number of 20mph roundels.

FERNLEIGH ROAD AND WOODBERRY AVENUE
Because of the higher speeds in these two roads traffic calming will be necessary in a 20mph zone. However we are giving residents the choice between road narrowing with planters placed in the road or speed humps.
Wherever possible we would use a particular type of speed hump which is better for cyclists, and reduces noise and vibration to nearby residents. However, in one location in Fernleigh Road (east of Hazelmere Road) the location of driveways mean that we will have to install a set speed cushions instead.
The key difference between the options is that planters will require the removal of parking spaces. Fernleigh Road would loose five spaces and Woodberry Avenue seventeen spaces.

BANNED TURNS
We are proposing to ban traffic from turning left from Station Road into both Ringwood Way and Radcliffe Road between 7:30-9:30am and 5:00-7:00pm. Although this will also affect residents, we are responding to complaints about the amount of traffic using these roads to avoid the new traffic lights on Green Lanes.

Links

Details of proposals and online questionnaire

Detailed drawings

Log in to comment

Share this article

The second Quieter Neighbourhoods scheme to be consulted on is for the "Connaught Gardens" QN - the triangular area bounded by Hedge Lane, the North Circular and Green Lanes.  The deadline for responses is 22nd October.

connaught gardens qn proposals

I was hoping that Enfield Council's traffic planners would have studied how tremendously effective the "villages" in Walthamstow have proved, dramatically improving the liveability of residential streets by making it awkward, but not impossible, for cars to drive through residential zones.  Instead, they seem to be simply bringing out of the cupboard the designs that were worked up two or three years ago and only deal with particular localised problems.

As with the "Wolves Lane" QN, the Council is not really doing much to create a zone with little or no through traffic, though the measures proposed for the eastern end of Oakthorpe Road and for Arnold Gardens and Chimes Avenue look as if they should be effective at stopping rat-running towards the North Circular in this locality.  Unfortunately, the detailed drawings of the proposed "point no entry" build-outs are missing from the consultation document (presumably this is unintentional).  Without seeing these, it's difficult to judge what exactly the build-outs will achieve.

However, the plans don't seem to do anything about another serious rat run: south along Connaught Gardens, right into Hazelwood Lane, left into Callard Avenue, left onto the North Circ.  There is also a rat running problem at the top of Hazelwood Lane: cars enter from Green Lanes and turn right into The Grove, making both streets busier than they ought to be, and nothing has been done to stop this.

The proposed one-way system in Windsor and Osborne Roads and at the end of Lightcliffe Road is likely to increase traffic in Park Avenue, which won't be welcome to its residents.  Currently, Park Avenue does not suffer seriously from through traffic, but some drivers go much too fast for a shortish residential street.  Unlike Windsor and Osborne, there are no plans to install speed bumps in Park Avenue.

The one-way system will also create additional traffic along New River Crescent.  In fact, as far as i can see, there's nothing to stop cars wishing to avoid the Hedge Lane/Green Lane lights from using New River Crescent and Park Avenue.

The consultation document mentions in passing that following an earlier consultation, the council is going ahead with installing width restrictions at the northern ends of Connaught Gardens and Munster Gardens and at the point where Hazelwood Lane crosses the New River.  These are designed to stop HGVs transiting through the area and will be installed in the near future.

Overall, I'm deeply disappointed by these proposals, as they will only deter some of the rat runners and will create new rat running routes.  A much more ambitious and effective scheme could have been developed.

Log in to comment

Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3223 28 Sep 2017 20:51
I assume then that this does NOT represent the commonly agreed position residents developed over two council facilitated workshops?
Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3224 28 Sep 2017 22:59

Karl Brown wrote: I assume then that this does NOT represent the commonly agreed position residents developed over two council facilitated workshops?

It is pretty similar to what we'd developed, but with some differences:
  1. I recall there being something to make it more difficult to turn right out of Connaught Gardens into Hazelwood Lane
  2. I don't think there was agreement about making Osborne and Windsor one-way.
But the thing is that we weren't being very ambitious because we didn't know how much could be achieved, ie the Walthamstow villages hadn't been done at that stage.

Going back to something similar to what the workshops had arrived at is obviously easier and quicker for the council, but I think they should have at least suggested something more radical.
Karl Brown's Avatar
Karl Brown posted a reply #3228 02 Oct 2017 18:49
Neither seem anywhere close to fulfilling the objective of setting the bid-outlined framework of developing a grid of tertiary streets across the borough - essentially residential streets within an A-road boundary pretty much protected from vehicles and so providing the safety for cyclists to get about and also to facilitate their safe access to the segregated cycle lanes. Nor do they tackle through (rat-running) traffic, a second related key theme of the bid.
The Lakes / Meadway / Fernleigh Road area Quieter Neighbourhoods, presumably also due out shortly, will be interesting in both capturing the planned quietway running parallel to Green Lanes and any safe cycling means between Palmers Green and Southgate town centres, two of the boroughs four main centres. Let’s see if they’re a bit more up to the required and anticipated tasks because let’s not forget that London’s transport strategy, as currently written, has us at peak car journey levels, with the planned expectation of a future reduction with car journeys being replaced by public transport, cycling and walking. If that’s to happen then the infrastructure will need to accept it and facilitate it.
Tia Sotiriou's Avatar
Tia Sotiriou posted a reply #3235 10 Oct 2017 13:08
I stumbled upon this consultation on this website last night by chance and was upset to see that speed humps are planned for Arnold Gardens.

I think these will only exaggerate the noise problem and our road is far too narrow not to affect our properties by noise.

I do however agree with the no point of entry proposals. The rat run is a serious issue for us residents and the noise is never ending of vehicles cutting through at all hours.

I don't recall receiving the consultation papers in the post from the council. I did receive a set many months ago but that was all and if I remember right there was no mention of speed humps.

I have looked on the Enfield Council website but cannot find any information, surprise surprise!

I have now emailed David Taylor at the council to see if I get a response to my questions.
Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3236 10 Oct 2017 14:13
I live in Park Avenue, which is also in the "Connaught Gardens Quieter Neighbourhood". We had small notice put through the door a couple of weeks ago telling us to look at the Cycle Enfield website and without any information about the specific plans for our area. I think the council is saving money by using the same flyer for all the quieter neighbourhoods rather than printing separate more detailed ones. The end result is that the public will be even less well informed about these new consultations than they were about the original one.

The details of the scheme are at www.consultatio...ion/intro/ and there is a more detailed drawing at www.consultatio...gement.pdf .

As regards Arnold Gardens, the main thing is to stop the rat run from Connaught Gardens:

Connaught Gardens - right into Hazelwood Lane - left into Chimes Avenue - left into Arnold Gardens - left into Oakthorpe Road - left onto the North Circ.

To be successful, it must make it very difficult to use this route, but at the same time it must be possible for people living in those streets to be able to enter and leave them, even if they have to drive slightly further than they do at the moment.

I'm not sure that the proposals will actually achieve this, it's difficult to tell from the maps.

Also, they won't stop people turning into Callard Avenue to get to the North Circ. I am right in thinking that you can turn left out of Callard Avenue onto the North Circ?
Tia Sotiriou's Avatar
Tia Sotiriou posted a reply #3237 10 Oct 2017 17:07
Since the cycle works on Green Lanes began, the rat run on Arnold Gardens and Chimes Avenue disappeared. However, since Saturday (7th) we have noticed the traffic has returned, with a vengeance!

I am dreading the thought of speed humps outside my bedroom window!

I have emailed an officer at the council to see if he can assist with my questions. I doubt any of my neighbours are aware as to the plans for humps and no entry points.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #3264 21 Oct 2017 13:32
Tomorrow (22nd October) is the last day you can fill in the online consultation about traffic calming in the area to the south of Hedge Lane, including Hazelwood Lane, Oakthorpe Road, Park Avenue, Windsor Road, Osborne Road, Connaught Gardens, Munster Gardens... To read what Better Streets for Enfield think about the scheme go to betterstreets.c...hbourhood/

To respond to the consultation visit www.consultatio...ion/intro/

Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3265 21 Oct 2017 13:52
Arnold Gardens changes look as if they will be effective in stopping this street being used as a rat run. However, surely this will mean that the rat runners will use Callard Avenue instead? So it won't stop the fast rat runners along Connaught Gardens who turn right into Hazelwood Lane and are a big menace.

At the far end of the scheme, one-waying Osborne and Windsor Roads will add to the traffic on Park Avenue and New River Crescent. The council should either abandon the one-way scheme or take serious steps to calm Park Avenue, which too many drivers go along at high speed. It needs speed humps anyway, even as things are, and a narrowing at Lightcliffe Road junction to discourage fast through traffic.

Share this article

Enfield Council has relaunched its Quieter Neighbourhoods project (by my count, for the second time) by publishing its proposals for the "Wolves Lane Quieter Neighbourhood".  Curiously, however, Wolves Lane itself doesn't even appear on the map on the consultation leaflet - it shows only Melville Gardens and streets to the east - and the suggested changes would only affect a small area around Oakthorpe School and certainly not create a "quieter neighbourhood".

wolves lane qn proposals

Only three changes are proposed, at least two of which (and probably all three) are intended to improve road safety around Oakthorpe School, which was the subject of a petition to the council earlier this year. The "school street" proposal would close Tile Kiln Lane to all cars except residents' during school arrival and departure times.

While these changes would undoubtedly improve road safety around the school, they would go nowhere towards creating a "quieter neighbourhood", even in the small area shown on the map.  But the Wolves Lane QN as previously shown on Council maps extended all the way to Green Lanes.  So what about the western part of the QN and what will be done about the constant stream of rat running traffic along Tottenhall Road?  Cars coming from Wood Green along Wolves Lane turn into Tottenhall Road by the Bird in Hand and head for the Great Cambridge Road, running at high speed along the one-way Ostliffe Road (making life unpleasant for bus passengers using the Ostliffe Road stop) or driving along Pasteur Gardens.

The existence of these rat running problems was acknowledged by Enfield Council in an earlier consultation (December 2013), which suggested putting barriers across Pasteur Gardens and Chequers Way, but this was never implemented.

The original Mini Holland bid proposals, which won Enfield funding from Transport for London, included the proposal for "residential cells", which were subsequently renamed Quieter Neighbourhoods. In the document the council stated that "Our goal is to remove through traffic from these residential streets, so that only residents access these areas."  These proposals certainly wouldn't achieve that  - these wolves are not just lacking in teeth, in fact the wolves are missing altogether from the "Wolves Lane Quieter Neighbourhood"!

The deadline for responding to the public consultation is 15 October 2017.

https://www.consultations.cycleenfield.co.uk/traffic-and-transportation/qn-perception-survey/
Log in to comment

Bill Linton's Avatar
Bill Linton posted a reply #3213 27 Sep 2017 16:36
Wolves Lane is there - it's just not named as such. It's the continuation of Melville Gardens south of Tottenhall.

The school street for Tile Kiln Lane is (according to parents) much needed - but I agree that to call this a Quieter Neighbourhood is a travesty of the term.
Basil Clarke's Avatar
Basil Clarke posted a reply #3214 27 Sep 2017 18:00

Bill Linton wrote: Wolves Lane is there - it's just not named as such. It's the continuation of Melville Gardens south of Tottenhall.

Yes, of course it is, silly me. But that ruins my attempt at a rhetorical flourish, I'll have to rewrite the article.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #3242 11 Oct 2017 22:38
This is what Better Streets for Enfield say about the proposals on their website - betterstreets.co.uk .

Enfield Council is consulting on plans to make the school run safer to Oakthorpe Primary School on Tile Kiln Lane. It closes on 15 October and you can respond here .

Our response as Better Streets for Enfield can be summarised as:
  • We welcome Enfield’s first school street on Tile Kiln Lane

  • We welcome the crossing on Chequers Way, although its position may need more thought

  • The main problem is traffic cutting through the whole Wolves Lane residential area. Measures are needed to prevent this and keep traffic on the main roads.

If you agree, you could use the same or similar or similar wording in your own response .

Share this article

Clare Rogers makes the case for low-traffic neighbourhoods. This article was originally published on the Better Streets for Enfield website.

Would you let your child or grandchild play out on your street? Do you feel able to ride a bike around your neighbourhood? Or does the traffic put you off? For many of us, streets in our residential areas have become conduits for through traffic, rather than places where residents can walk, cycle, meet or play.

Yet in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany, residential areas give priority to people over traffic and tend to be access-only, not through routes. As a result, children can play and travel more independently, and older people can be active and mobile. We think this is the key to a much healthier, happier population.

Mayor Transport Strategy image filter 1 1024x563A residential street closed to through traffic - an image from the Mayor of London's draft Transport Strategy

Better Streets is asking for a radical change in our neighbourhoods:

Remove through traffic from residential areas to create ‘low-traffic neighbourhoods’ – allowing walking, cycling and socialising, while maintaining access for residents by car

What’s the problem?

The vast majority of Enfield’s public space is made up of streets in residential areas. Yet most have become little more than conduits for traffic. It’s common to find a street with, say, 150 households being used by between 1,000 and 3,500 vehicles a day. Drivers pass through to shave seconds off a longer journey, and as non-residents they may have little interest in taking care or slowing down. With sat navs and apps like Waze around, this problem isn’t going away.

Halstead Road crash 2017 1

The photo above was taken on a residential road in Bush Hill Park – one of five collisions in just over a year. Residents wonder when someone will get killed. However, the worst effects of heavy through traffic are invisible:

  • Parents don’t let their children play outdoors – meaning less exercise, independence and making friends in the neighbourhood
  • Not many choose to walk or cycle locally, feeling safer inside a car – meaning less physical activity and more danger for everyone
  • Little time spent out on the street means no sense of community between neighbours – isolating more vulnerable people like the elderly
  • Air pollution can be dangerously high – increasing disease and shortening lives
  • Traffic noise is also harmful to health – linked to stress, sleep disturbance, hypertension and heart disease

The good news is that London is waking up to the idea of ‘healthy streets’ – in other words, streets where all sorts of people, including young and old, choose to walk, cycle and spend time. This is now part of the Mayor of London’s draft Transport Strategy.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods

Traffic-calming measures like speed bumps and road narrowing can reduce speeds. This is of some benefit, but they won’t cut traffic volume. They won’t discourage drivers from using a street as a short cut. So we are calling for street design that stops through traffic across a whole area, creating a ‘low-traffic neighbourhood’. There are a few ways to achieve this, including alternating one-way streets, but the most effective measure seems to be ‘modal filters’.

Waltham Forest’s Mini Holland sets a recent example. Certain streets in Walthamstow and the Blackhorse Road area have strategically placed ‘filters’  – gates, bollards or planters – allowing cycles through, but not cars. In the whole cell of residential streets, there is no direct route through for traffic, but every resident can still drive to their own street.

Before and after Waltham Forest streetThe same street in Waltham Forest before and after it was closed to through traffic. Here, the large planter acts as a filter. Image: Jakob Hartmann

The same street in Waltham Forest before and after it was closed to through traffic. Here, the large planter acts as a filter. Image: Jakob Hartmann
The difference is dramatic. You can now hear birdsong on those streets, and children play outdoors independently. Any drivers entering or leaving the area are either residents or professionals (like delivery drivers) so they take far more care. Within the areas, collision rates have dropped dramatically, car journeys have reduced by 50 to 90 per cent, and there is a rise in walking and cycling, including families on the school run.

Doesn’t that just displace traffic onto main roads?

This is the first question most people ask, and it was a concern for residents in Waltham Forest too: won’t all that through traffic be displaced onto other roads and cause gridlock?

In fact, in Walthamstow’s low-traffic neighbourhood the increase in traffic on surrounding main roads has been manageable; average bus journeys times have not changed. While some car journeys have been displaced, a large  number have simply stopped. There are 10,000 fewer car journeys per day across the Walthamstow Village area, including the surrounding main roads – a decrease of 16%.  This is known as ‘traffic evaporation’ and has been documented in similar situations all over the world.

People tend to think that traffic is like water – block one route, and it will flood another. But traffic is the result of human choices. When walking and cycling are made more safe and convenient, and driving slightly less convenient for short trips, fewer people choose to get in their cars.

In any case, why should residential streets be part of the main road network? That’s not their function. Many of our residential streets were laid out before cars came to dominate the roads and were not intended to carry through traffic. If you look at any post-war housing development, the streets will not be through routes, but a network of cul-de-sacs. Our older streets should be updated to have the same design. In fact, this may even smooth traffic flow on main roads, since lots of cars turning in and out of side streets can make everyone’s journey slower.

Would this work in Enfield?

Waltham Forest is not the only place with filtered roads. In Enfield certain streets have been closed to through traffic for decades, resulting in better quality of life for residents and safe passage for anyone who wants to cycle.

Broomfield Ave filterBroomfield Avenue, N13. These bollards stop traffic entering from Aldermans Hill, turning a street that used to carry more than 6,000 vehicles a day into a quiet street for residents (and for walking and cycling through)

As Enfield Council embarks on its Quieter Neighbourhoods programme, we encourage it to aim high. We think that the lessons learnt in Waltham Forest, Hackney and elsewhere can be adapted in Enfield to create our own low-traffic neighbourhoods. Even good quality bike lanes on main roads won’t increase cycling rates unless people feel safe to cycle to them; low-traffic neighbourhoods will make that possible. With our population growing by 5,000 a year, we desperately need to cut the number of car journeys, and a more active population will take pressure off the local NHS. Apart from that, it just isn’t fair on residents to have lots of traffic racing along their street.

Would you like to see this in your area? If you use a car, would you mind driving by a slightly longer route to access your street, if it meant less traffic going through? Let the council know.  There is a perception survey for Quieter Neighbourhoods here, and you can also contact your local ward councillors via this website.

It sounds like a radical ask – but it’s common sense. Enfield Council has shown plenty of political courage by building high-quality cycle infrastructure, despite some vocal opposition. Now we call on the council to transform our neighbourhood streets and make life better for everyone.

Log in to comment

David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3114 24 Jul 2017 12:05
Thanks for sharing the survey. I think it's always a nice ambition but needs to be extremely thoroughly thought through to get it right - in particular decing which roads should benefit and which are key to keep open.

Personally I'd like priority given to the speed cameras along the likes of Alderman's Hill, Cannon Hill, Wilmer & Powys etc.
Ivor Evans's Avatar
Ivor Evans posted a reply #3127 25 Jul 2017 12:13
Thanks for the thoughtful article, Clare, I think it makes complete sense. I'd like to go further, and make Enfield a "twenty's plenty" borough, just excepting the very major through roads like the A10 and the North Circular. There's a great deal of evidence that lower speed limits in urban areas reduce death and injury rates on the roads, with surprisingly little effect on overall car journey times - and pollution levels should be lowered too. I agree with David that more policing via speed cameras is needed - as a regular walker up Alderman's Hill, for example, I'm shocked at the massive breaches of the - 30mph - speed limit by much of the traffic.
Ivor Evans.
David Eden's Avatar
David Eden posted a reply #3128 25 Jul 2017 15:25
The only problem I see with 20s plenty, is that a lot of evidence also suggests it's routinely ignored and, from what I've seen and experienced, where it is achieved it's as much down to traffic and other road measures as the limit itself. Works in more central/congested areas but Enfield roads are much clearer and therefore would provide greater scope for regular breach of a 20 limit (especially as Council inaction suggests 30 isn't enforced with much enthusiasm as it is).
Colin Younger's Avatar
Colin Younger posted a reply #3129 25 Jul 2017 15:49
I fear that David Eden's reservations about a 20mph are likely to be realistic. For example, such a zone on roads between Aldermans Hill and Fox Lane would not be an effective control against the drivers who currently exceed the 30 mph limit.

The workshops on the Quieter Neighbourhoods discussed a variety of physical and "psychological" barriers as a way of slowing traffic down. It was suggested that some of these ideas could be trialled before any permanent decisions were made. I await with interest whether any of these ideas will be tried out and whether we will have a chance to influence matters further.

I have heard in various fora that no "single road"solutions, such as road closures, will be included unless it can be demonstrated that they won't just displace the problem.

As a matter of interest, the traffic counting sensors' rubber tubes across Lakeside Road have been deliberately severed. It wasn't obvious, so people might want to examine other rubber tubes and report any which have been similarly attacked.
PGC Webmaster's Avatar
PGC Webmaster posted a reply #3151 01 Aug 2017 20:46
The new Liveable Neighbourhoods that were announced by City Hall last week aren't the same as the Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods that Clare writes about, but are certainly part of the same overall approach:

A new £85.9 million Liveable Neighbourhoods programme will give boroughs the opportunity to bid for funding for long-term schemes that encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport, in line with the Mayor’s Healthy Streets approach.

The programme will provide grants of between £1 million and £10 million for a wide range of community-supported projects, potentially including the creation of green spaces, new cycling infrastructure, redesigned junctions and the widening of walking routes to improve access to local shops, businesses and public transport. By supporting projects which have local support, the funding will particularly target schemes that are shown to improve boroughs and reduce car trips – improving health and air quality.

The Liveable Neighbourhoods programme is a key part of the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy, which last month detailed plans to create a fairer, greener, healthier and more prosperous city by making London’s streets more welcoming and encouraging active travel and public transport.


Liveable Neighbourhoods is a long-term funding programme. Boroughs can submit bids at any time however submissions for each financial year will close in October (20 October for 2017) with announcements of the successful bids made each December.

The Liveable Neighbourhoods programme is being funded through the Mayor’s Healthy Streets portfolio, which aims to improve air quality and reduce congestion through transforming communities, making them greener, healthier and more attractive places to live and do business. More details regarding Healthy Streets can be found at www.content.tfl...london.pdf