Forum topic: Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

David, sadly I think it is unlikely we can return to the utopia of your childhood days. Whilst I welcome the introduction of ‘play streets’, I cannot see many parents allowing their children to play after dark or even during the day for that matter. It is not just a question of car usage and pollution but there is also the issue of crime. I know many local parents have taken to picking up their secondary school children from Southgate station because of the recent spate of muggings specifically targeting teenagers. I was delighted when my teenage son decided to walk home along Bourne Hill during the summer months but after a few muggings along that route I had to stop him. I am one of the few parents in his circle that allows him to take the W9 home from Southgate station. The rest are collected by car.

I spoke to 2 planners at the meeting to discuss the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood scheme and they had no clue about the crimespot that Southgate has become. They both agreed that these issues should have been considered when planning the scheme as these issues affect the decisions people make about car usage.

My point is that making our local streets safe for children is not just about traffic and pollution, although clearly these are important factors. Furthermore, there are many reasons why people will continue to need their cars and parents will always prioritise their child’s safety over car usage.

No surprise that there are roughly as many suggestions as there are posts since this is a complex problem and everyone has some personal experience. That however tends not to be of the whole area, nor includes modelled anticipated impacts of the non-area roads. Feeding all ideas to the Council is therefore a sensible channel.
Reading through I was drawn to points made by Candy Newman in two separate posts: the first referred to Oakfield as “our street”, and that seems powerful because, while it is a public thoroughfare and so “everyone’s”, the perceived extension of your home into your immediate street is real.
She also talks of Oakwood of being “a fairly quiet, pleasant road, with a great community and with many young families”. (In the last but one set of traffic data, Oakfield had (relatively) the second lowest volume of traffic and the second lowest velocity in the area.) It’s exactly that type of health and community enhancing environment which residents of eg Meadway, Amberely / Mall, Old Park Road / Caversham, amongst others of our area's streets, have sought for many years.
My own street petitioned with an accompanying impact report some years since to be a local LTN. It had the support of 96% of households, including a GP surgery and two care homes. The council highlighted downside impacts to other streets and hence the need to look at an area wide solution. We accepted the argument and some five years or so later here we finally are.
I would like to think that residents of all streets, busy and otherwise, can see all sides and when a revised scheme comes forward will follow this streets approach and not seek to raise their own drawbridge to the detriment of many others, instead seek a wider solution we can all benefit from - the first of many in Enfield.

Google maps and especially Waze are primary facilitators of the growth in back street rat running in London.
www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/map-apps-like-waze-turning-quiet-london-streets-into-polluted-rat-runs-a3507646.html

I have no idea on how/whether their activities can be controlled. Many drivers are now totally reliant on satnav and these apps to get around and shaving 2 minutes off a journey by ducking through side streets looks appealing to many.

I live in the presumed Connaught Gardens low traffic area, so watching with interest.

Hi Chelsea, yes I mean no will. Hence why drivers are happy doubling the current 30mph speed limit..... 20mph does nothing versus those already happy to drive 30mph (the numbers of which are vast).

The Council DID NOT spend £30m on cycle lanes.

Christ. How is that debate still going on....??

Regardless of the cost this is the council that ignored overwhelming opposition to the cycle lanes claiming that there would be an influx of cyclists to the area which would boost business and cut congestion on the roads.

We all know that the lanes are never used and no new businesses have opened or existing ones seen a massive revenue boost.If so I'd like to see the figures supporting its success . A messed up Green Lanes probably contributes to the rat running.

The council are now doing the same again with magical claims such as' traffic evaporation'.This current project is rejected by the vast majority since they know this new scheme will be a disaster again. It's being implemented,in part, to try and mitigate the massive 'cock up' they created on Green Lanes.

I wonder how long it will be until other residents in the pending closure zones realise that it might be best to vote out these local Labour councillors before their areas are sealed off . Not long I bet!. Local elections are going to be very interesting indeed.

Somebody else asked if we are still talking about the cycle lanes - it appears we still are. The QN plans pre-date the cycle lanes. As Karl will tell you this has been going on for years. However it does make sense that QNs should be put in in conjunction with cycling lanes and this was the proposal before Daniel Anderson replaced Chris Bond. From my experience most of the increase in traffic has been N-S rather than E-W so I don’t think the lanes have made a difference. Ps if you don’t see that more people aren’t using the lanes then I suggest you are in denial of aren’t looking - not only the numbers (backed up by the counter) but the sheer increase in diversity is amazing to see - young women, families, working men, BAME etc.

You make an interesting point about democracy as the cycle lanes were full installed before the last locals 2018. Labour won an increased majority. The Conservatives were hoping for gains in Winchmore Hill but it didn’t happen.

Could I ask that everyone here considers the whole community within the Fox Lane area. If you live in a quiet road please consider your nearby neighbours who have to cope with near main road levels of traffic on narrow residential roads? The surrounding areas should be re-assured by the experiences of Waltham Forest where, after an initial rise in traffic, it did come back down and sometimes to lower than it was before.

Finally this has become a long 11 page thread but did I just read that someone drives from Cranley Gdns to Aldermans Pharmacy. I am assuming that person wasn’t able to walk but does anyone else think that this is a normal distance for an able bodied person to drive rather than walk? Just getting in the car for every journey, regardless of the distance, can’t be right.

Hal has a valid point.I I think that the whole neighborhood should be considered,even resident drivers.

That is why I have made suggestions to allow only residents to drive onto and exit Aldermans Hill,even just a couple of roads flowing one way would do it. Until there is some compromise in that regard then just shutting off all exit points seems massively inconsiderate.

Just two one way roads to limit cost, enforced by ANPR onto Aldermans Hill with residents only vehicle access solves everyones problems.
It's easily enforcable by an external company with each address allowed to register a couple of vehicles.
Can somebody suggest why this idea is flawed.I think it's a great compromise.

P.S Green Lanes was a real waste of money.There maybe a few extra bikes but not enough to justify the disruption and cost .Green Lanes has always been diverse,not sure how that can be quantified