pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
facebook icon twitter icon

Forum topic: Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Basil Clarke

25 Jan 2016 13:59 #1961

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

...

Following last week's meeting of the Enfield West Partnership Board, the revised proposals for cycle lanes along the A105 will be considered by Enfield Council's Cabinet on 10th February.  If, as seems likely, the proposals are approved, they will then be sent to Transport for London (TfL) for its approval.  If given the green light by TfL, the proposals will then be subject to a period of statutory public consultation.

Following the consultation, the engineers would move on to detailed design work, including co-design workshops involving the community. Implementation would be expected during 2016

"Significant revisions"

In response to comments received during last year's consultation, some "significant" revisions have been made to the proposals.  Though the detailed drawings have not yet been published, they are known to include the following:

  • keeping Vicars Moor Lane and Hazelwood Lane two-way at their junctions with Green Lanes and retaining the left turn from Green Lanes into Station Road;
  • improving parking provision for shoppers in Winchmore Hill and Palmers Green - to include 30 minutes free parking in some locations;
  • adding a raised pavement to nearly all of the proposed bus boarders so passengers don’t step straight on to the cycle path when getting off the bus;
  • allowing blue badge holders and dial-a-ride vehicles to set down and pick up passengers at any point along the route;
  • moving parking bays to the outside of the cycle lanes to give extra protection to cyclists;
  • introducing additional zebra crossing by Regency Court on Park Avenue and by St Monica’s Church; and
  • adjusting some bus stop proposals in response to views from the community - for instance, the northbound Lodge Drive bus stop would be moved further north and merged with the Fox Lane stop.

Economic and other assessments

Last week's Enfield West Partnership Board was presented with the results of various assessments of the potential impact of the A105 cycle lane, carried out by independent consultants following rigorous guidelines.  We expect these to be published ahead of the Cabinet meeting in the normal way, but in the meantime feedback from participants in the meeting includes the following summarised information:

  • Air pollution: : much of Enfield is currently well over legal limits, particularly around main roads. Depending on the reduction in car journeys, there should be a slight reduction in the level of particulates and poisonous emissions.
  • Traffic flow: There will be a very slight increase in journey times from Palmers Green to Enfield Town.  The worst case scenario at some peak times might add close to two minutes over the whole route.
  • Local economy: The expectation is for a neutral impact to annual turnover in A105 town centres, but a possible outcome if planned changes to the shopping areas prove attractive to visitors is an increase in business - up as much as 10-15 per cent – in line with experiences seen elsewhere.

Full Council and Cabinet meetings

The Cabinet will be discussing the A105 scheme at their meeting on 10th February (7pm at the Civic Centre in Silver Street, Enfield Town).  Before that the full Council will be debating a paper brought forward by the Conservative Group on 28th January (also 7pm at the Civic Centre).  Both meetings are open to the public, but seating is limited, so if you are planning to go it is recommended to arrive by 6.30pm.

Links

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Karl Brown

26 Jan 2016 20:35 #1962

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

So let’s watch this space, although I’m sure there will be yet further twists and turns to come.

What now strikes me with is that the long-running heavily-touted concerns seemingly mitigated: near-shop parking, business risk, congestion, air quality, disabled parking, and bus stop location, just how much of a superior final position for all the various interests it may have been possible to work out had all the energy of the last two years been spent in that direction, looking for opportunities from the large investment won by the borough, rather than on promoting headline issues guaranteed to undermine. We might even have plans for a new tree on a new Triangle agreed by now and some sophisticated optimisation of retail between Palmers Green and the Winchmore Hill centres. If only.

Looking forward to the Quieter Neighbourhood workshops coming back onto local agendas should this part of the Enfield scheme get through its next stages.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Basil Clarke

27 Jan 2016 19:05 #1968

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

At the moment Green Lanes is just a traffic conduit full of noisy polluting cars splashing water over pedestrians as they speed through. Cycle Enfield can help start to it back into a place for living in. And living is about interaction with other people, not about driving places in cars or sitting at home watching television.

Who knows, it might even do the same for Green Lanes in Winchmore Hill? It has some handsome parades of shops, but at the moment the pavements there are nearly deserted - no wonder with cars continually zooming through at 40mph.

The Federation of Enfield Residents Associations has got it completely the wrong way round. They say that "heavy traffic restrictions [...] will diminish the quality of life for thousands" as if quality of life was defined by how quickly you can get from one place to another by car. Well, this "federation" of backward lookers doesn't speak for me. I'm an Enfield resident and the things that most diminishes my quality of life are the noise, pollution and danger posed by heavy traffic.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Paul Mandel

28 Jan 2016 01:40 #1969

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

Basil. FERAA may not speak for you. But it does seem like its view are in line with most Enfleld residents.
I agree that Palmers Green town centre is rather tired looking. But a cycle superhighway isn't going to improve it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Karl Brown

28 Jan 2016 09:44 #1970

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

Basil writes, The Federation of Enfield Residents Associations has got it completely the wrong way round. They say that "heavy traffic restrictions [...] will diminish the quality of life for thousands" as if quality of life was defined by how quickly you can get from one place to another by car. Well, this "federation" of backward lookers doesn't speak for me.

FERAA speaks for, or as it puts it, represents the residents’ associations active within the borough. I would hazard a guess that Fox Lane (FLDRA) is both the largest, probably most active as well as possibly the most impacted residents’ association by currently available Cycle Enfield proposals.

Hundreds of members (plus non-member residents) of the FLDRA geographical area attended a public meeting, Quieter Neighbourhoods (QN) workshops, and / or inputted to the Councils linked QN consultation. The reactions appeared to be broadly supportive of change - I’m also minded to a very large, unanimous FLDRA vote some years back saying that, in general, vehicles were viewed as travelling too fast throughout the area. I personally get no sense of a slow down since then.

The FLDRA AGM notice received earlier this week confirmed there would not be an overall association view of the Cycle Enfield A105 proposals, rather it be left to individual members to input thoughts to consultation(s). That is reasonable in the absence of a specific meeting / member consultation and knowing this is a large, complex programme of proposals.

The following day FLDRA forwarded an e mail from FERAA specifically addressing Cycle Enfield indicating how they (FERAA) had been “working extremely hard on the campaign..to save our ..roads from the Cycle Enfield scheme”. Adding that “The cycle scheme will be largely unused” before going on to say that, “we have held numerous residents’ meetings…” They then called for visible support to make clear the “demands of the overwhelming majority of residents”.

It wasn’t clear if that overwhelming majority was that highlighted by the Councils consultation (yes, a small majority), David Burrowes’ household poll (no), the Enfield Independents own poll (yes) or a straw poll of FLDRA members looking at Quieter neighbourhoods (yes I’m suggesting).

I was also intrigued to see FERAA proactively approaching all 30 or so of the borough’s Friends of Park’s groups calling for their support in opposing Cycle Enfield. Speaking on behalf and leading discussion are not necessarily two sides of the same coin.

So back to Basil’s point, just which active residents associations are FERAA representing? Are they doing so in a balanced manner? And on this basis, would FLDRA get the 2/3 vote required to maintain its current Affiliation to FERAA?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Paul Mandel

28 Jan 2016 11:10 #1971

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

In my opinion, the FLDRA committee's view on cycle Enfield is inline with its membership and the FERAA chair's position is also representative of the general opinion of representatives attending FERAA meetings over the past year or so. I can vouch for all this, as someone who has attended most of the FLDRA general meetings for the past several years, been a member of the committee for a year and attended several FERAA meetings during this time. The Burrowes referendum result ties in well with all of this. The Council's consultations are likely to have given an overestimate of the borough wide support for the scheme, as

a. the London Cycle Campaign was active in getting its members to take part, Remember, Enfield is just 1/30th of their total area.

b. whilst I have no evidence for it, I imagine local Labour and Green party members and Council employees, would have been disproportionately involved in giving supportive responses.

With regard to FLDRA's affiliation to FERAA, if any member is unhappy with it, s/he can of course ask the committee to give an opportunity for this to be debated and voted on at a general meeting. I for one would be supportive of this as it is of course necessary for officers of any organisation to be in touch with and responsive to its membership. The constitution does appear not make it clear whether a simple majority of a two thirds majority would be needed to revoke the affiliation and that would need resolving.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Karl Brown

28 Jan 2016 15:37 #1972

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

So what is the view of the FLDRA membership on Cycle Enfield? I'm sure they’d be interested to know.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Karl Brown

30 Jan 2016 12:48 #1978

Share share on facebook icon share on twitter icon Share by email

Who submitted, or was encouraged to, I don’t know. Personally I always consider it incumbent upon planners in whatever area to learn from experience elsewhere whenever it exists and why on earth not, for input from whatever quarter is data capable of improving an outcome. But on the specific point of various bodies being involved in producing disproportioned response, and discounting known SOGL and Conservative party activist intent in this field, how about:

FERAA, (and recall) “Representing the residents’ associations active in the Borough”.

Action Agreed
• Encouraging maximum negative response to Town Centre consultation closing Dec 12th is vital:
• All FERAA associations to distribute call to members to sign up for Town Centre survey, and all other contacts to be pressed to help with additional submissions.
• Work with business community to raise awareness of resistance
• Plan for poster and local newspaper advertisements
• Target press with protest letters.
• Press for delays using enabling studies on pollution, transport, economic impact studies as procedural blocks.
• Aim to get London Mayoral candidates to commit to delay and review scheme if they are elected in May.

So back to Basil’s point, just which active residents associations are FERAA representing? Are they doing so in a balanced manner? And on this basis, would FLDRA get the 2/3 vote required to maintain its current Affiliation to FERAA?

And then my own subsequent question given that you apparently have the answer: So what is the view of the FLDRA membership on Cycle Enfield? I'm sure they’d be interested to know.

As a general interest point, are FLDRA members, via FLDRA, helping fund such FERAA actions?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: PGC WebmasterBasil Clarke
Time to create page: 0.729 seconds
Powered by Kunena
Clicky