A 'dashboard' showing traffic volumes and speeds in the Fox Lane area

I’m gobsmacked by the speed data. I had a brief look through the dashboard and it was those on Ulleswater Road that were the fastest. Over 10% of vehicles on Ulleswater were clocked doing +41mph. And four vehicles at +90mph.

Oakfield Road was also bad, with eight vehicles doing between 86mph-95mph.

Absolutely shocking!

Four vehicles clocked in Ulleswater (not even a cut-through) at over 90mph. Really? and exactly how accurate is this data?

Its a while since I logged in and today only because of a meeting this evening in Burford. I doubt this contribution is in the right place and will probably be deleted, but never mind.

I have lived on Lakes Estate since the late 1980's, been commuting by bicycle for over 30 years, around 10,000 miles each year half in London, and driving the same distance. Certainly the traffic in my road adjacent Ulleswater has increased but is not excessive, and I probably spend 20 hours/week working in the front room. I don't have much time to look at these forums.

So far as I am concerned The Green lane cycle lanes are a disaster, and the small stretch that I use on my commute is by far the most stressful and potentially dangerous part of my journey, being littered with plastic poles, half dinner plates (actually set in the cycleway), razor sharp granite kerb-stones, ramped sctions, bus stops, and pedestrians. The cycle lanes have even been driven through the middle of the pavement through the Palmers Green shopping frontage! Cycle Enfield have effectively legalized cycling on the pavement! Which may be ok for ladies with baskets and flowers and young children but not so for middle aged male commuters.

And the lanes have been carefully channeled, so it is not easy to avoid using them and cycling through the pavement and mixing with pedestrians. I generally take an alternative route to Enfield to avoid the stress and upsetting car drivers by not using the cycle lanes.

But worse still is the is the arrangement at Bus Stops where the cycle lanes have been driven between the bus stop/shelters and the kerb. What an utter farce and who with half a brain would have designed this. The arrangement can only work if there are practically no cyclists using cycle lane, which is fortunately the case, or no pedestrians waiting for or alighting buses

The team really should have spent time in City of London and Westminster (rather than Holland) to appreciate how cycle lanes can be made to work properly for all road and pavement users in London.

Originally announced as dedicated cycle-ways as these lanes have subsequently been labelled as Shared Spaces!

I have made my points earlier on the absurd scheme for Quieter Neighborhoods presented by Enfield which had obviously not been discussed with either police of Fire Brigade.

There is also talk of allowing children to play in the streets here. But all properties in this estate are large family houses with generous gardens where council policy has restricted a max 10% change of use to flats. People have cars and expect to use them. Whilst I will happily trundle anywhere around London on my bike I am inevitably travelling on my own and very light. And it is dangerous. Using the bike is quite simply not an option for the weekly shop or a trip to the builders merchant.

My main concern now is that we are going to have a scheme imposed on us which has been designed by the same team that thought up the A105 cycle lanes, and who genuinely believe they have done brilliant. In your dreams.

And exactly WHO at Enfield is actually responsible for all this?

1,682 bicycles in a week, or 1 bike very 10 minutes in the whole of the Fox Lane area.

What exactly happened to the green electric bikes introduced with great acclaim by Enfield

It's unsurprising there's few bike trips given how dangerous it is. Would you cycle down Fox Lane with young children? That's why we need a low traffic neighbourhood that excludes rat runners. And do you have data that contradicts the Council's ? Why would they make it up - the easiest option for them is to do nothing.

Dru stated 4 vehicles were clocked at over 90mph in Ulleswater (during 1 week).
Instead of blindly accepting info and figures from the council (or anyone else) they should be interrogated and checked.
My reading of the dashboard is that 2 cars were clocked in Ulleswater at max 55-60mph.

Fox Lane is the feeder road into the estate. But it has bends restricting visibility and with parking on both sides is not even wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass in several areas. My wife avoids driving down it if at all possible.

I am a local cyclist covering 10,000 miles each year. If I had to use public transport or the car I would likley not live in London but I am the exception. I offered advice and comments on the cycle lanes, to be told they were not designed for me! So where am I supposed to go?

Fox Lane is patently unsuitable to cycle down with children and WHY WOULD ANYONE EXPECT TO??
More appropriate cycling routes for children would be to use the much wider Bourne Hill or Aldermans Hill (except for the recently introduced central restrictions) or their wider and better maintained pavements. There is also the historic footpath linking Green Lanes to Fox Lane opposite Derwent Road junction.

A single bike journey recorded every 10 minutes covering the whole of the estate (comprising 15+ roads) is an amazingly low figure but has nothing to do with the dangers of Fox lane

Haringey and other London Boroughs have introduced almost blanket 20mph limit which generally work. Speed is the problem. The easy, effective and resident friendly option would be for the council to introduce 20mph limit through the Fox Lane and all estates.







In which case I expect we would all be hearing
My

Klem, you’re looking at the baseline data on page 1. You’ll find the higher recorded speeds on page 2 of the dashboard.

Happy to hear your suggestions about how we go about getting these checked.

Fox Lane is unsuitable now but if we are to address issues of obesity, climate change, low activity levels and dramatically increasing population in London then more people need to walk and cycle - including children - so streets like Fox Lane need to be safe for cyclists. And would you really take children down Bourne Hill today? Roads are not just for motor vehicles.
Speed is not the only problem - pollution and sheer volume of cars are also problems.

Your response should start 'in my opinion'.

Obesity and activity. When I was at school 1 entire day of each week (actually Wednesday and Saturday afternoons) was spent on Games , football, cricket, cross country running etc. So how much time is currently allocated in Enfield's schools this vital activity?

Letting 'Cycle Enfield' loose on Fox Lane will do absolutely nothing for obesity and activity, but it will hugely inconvenience practically all car owning resident, and add to both connection and pollution.

If a 20 mph speed restriction were imposed and enforced there should be no issues with supervised children cycling down Bourne Hill

Roads are for vehicles, both motorized and cyclists. Pavements are for pedestrians. If the law is changed and cyclist are allowed to use pavements their speed should be severely restricted so as not to endanger pedestrians.

Obviously cycling is to be encouraged but you really should appreciate it will only ever be a fair-weather option for most of the population. Are you out on your bike when its pissing down with rain, blowing a gale or below freezing? Are you really going to try to encourage people to use their bikes in such weather?

I note the number of cyclist recorded through PG triangle in December dropped hugely in December

I spent yesterday on my bike, 120 miles and almost 11 hours trying to keep my 70 year old body fit and active, most of it breathing hard and cleaning up the air for everyone else. What did everyone do?

Dru you are wrong.
In Ulleswater 2 vehicles are recorded at max 55-60mph between 11-12 pm on Saturday
Page 2 refers to the whole Fox Lane area.

Please don't tell me what to write in my posts, Klem . It's not just my opinion that more cycling and walking and less travel by vehicles will increase activity and help climate change and reduce pollution. Plenty of evidence on the internet - here's a starter:
lcc.org.uk/pages/my-liveable-london


And yes, there's no reason why people should not cycle in the rain - as they do in the Netherlands. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

Norway is celebrating its first year since 1910 (NB that’s not 2010) with no children killed on its roads. Oslo, population about twice that of Enfield, saw no child, pedestrian or cyclist death last year and only one road death when a driver drove into a barrier.
The long article in Saturday’s Times goes on to explain why / how: tightened speed limits, countless road humps, cars banned from some areas, car parking spaces removed from central streets and around all primary schools, 40 miles of new cycle lanes, well-funded traffic cops and a mandatory four days of classroom “traffic class” even before your first driving lesson.
Oslo’s governing mayor is quoted as saying, “drivers should act as guests … it’s about humans taking back the streets from cars”.
One business group predicted that the city centre would become a “ghost town”.

Thanks Adrian. I've read the Wikipedia article but there is no mention whatsoever about cycling in the rain.

I repeat: that you really should appreciate that cycling will only ever be a fair-weather option for most of the population. Are You out on your bike when its pissing down with rain, blowing a gale or below freezing? Are you really going to try to encourage people to use their bikes in such weather?

If you filter the data on page 2 to just see Ulleswater Rd data it shows 4 vehicles at 91mph or above.



But, perhaps more important, the chart shows 4182 vehicles exceeding 20mph, which is the maximum safe speed for driving along a residential street, where there is always a chance of a small person (young or old) emerging suddenly from between parked cars. That's 77 per cent of the total number of vehicles over the week.

More than 3000 vehicles were breaking the legal speed limit of 30mph - bad enough on a main road, but Ulleswater is not a main road.

In Holland (Just as wet/cold as London) a much higher percentage of children cycle to school; they don't cycle here because its unsafe and we have poor infrastructure . When I was young nearly everyone walked/cycled to school - no reason that shouldn't happen again. In fact with climate change, obesity and pollution crisis there's every reason they should walk or cycle.

theconversation.com/twenty-times-more-english-children-could-cycle-to-school-with-better-transport-planning-113082

If that's the case, then why aren't the current 30mph speed restrictions working....??

I'm an 82 year old cyclist, who cycled a lot in his childhood on roads where traffic was, by current standards, negligible . Then there was a break whilst I dealt with my education and early employment until I moved into deepest countryside 8 miles each way to/from work by 'bike'. That, by and large, was not a lot of fun because much of it was along a major road in the countryside, although one evening, long after dark, and on the section of my ride which was a track, not a main road, I cycled up behind a magnificent stag who didn't hear me coming; indeed I eventually had to shout to get him out of my way. That sort of experience stays with you.

But to business. In a sense I sympathize with Klem Klem; by comparison with what I've seen elsewhere in Europe the A105 (Green Lanes) cycle lanes are rather dismal, but the Council has done what can be done on exisiting roads, and for a single cyclist in a well-lit city it's adequate enough. Well done Enfield! Sure the sections on the pavements through the shopping areas could be dangerous, but with a loud bell on my bike's handlebars I get by.................and most walkers are polite and willing to scuttle onto the pavement. That's better that than people being scared of traffic and not cycling at all. And we should remember that even Europe's cycling nations have their problems which they solved and we are borrowing.

I say 'Hurrah' to Enfield. After all, those of us who are experienced cyclists can move back to the general carriageway, that's the law. And remember: quite a high proportion of car journeys are driver-only short trips which could have been walked, 'biked' or made on public transport. Walkers and cyclists are where the Council would like us to be.

I am adding this note to simply provide information, which readers can choose to accept or not. But I expect it may still attract comments questioning my motives. However, bravely on.

Firstly I am pleased to see that there is a degree of scepticism expressed over the speed data used in the dashboard. I have no doubt that the volume data is near enough correct and perhaps the data regarding the lower speeds also. But the data regarding the speeds of close to 100 mph must be challenged. Because they are frequently used to justify certain arguments. I recently did "the math", based on the laws of physical mechanics in respect of rates of acceleration, velocity and hence distance travelled. Then applied that to published data from car manufactures regarding their models' rates of acceleration. Those who choose to do so will find that it is impossible for a vehicle to have reached a these extreme speeds, travelled for a distance at that speed (remember during acceleration the vehicle would be well below these upper limit) and then decelerate towards the junction. The vehicle would have either flown into the park or similar. So please apply a degree of common sense when looking at these data points.

Secondly, it was of great interest to see the data for cycle numbers in Green Lanes and a level of selective transparency - through publication on . However I requested and obtained from LBE the data for the parallel cycle scheme in Edmonton's Hertford Road (attachment to this note). Ther,e the average number of cycle journeys in one direction is 90 per day. (between 1st August and 31st December 2019). The peak day was 149 and the lowest 40. Whilst this data is not immediately relevant to discussions in the Palmers Green area, it is relevant when assessing the levels of success of LBE schemes implemented to date.

In conclusion however, it is extremely positive that measured data (with an acceptable degree of accuracy ) is now being made available for evaluation of current and planning future options. This is to be welcomed. If we are to engage in meaningful debate regarding LTNs it must be grounded in sound data and modelled accordingly. Let us use these data going forward in the debates. And make it readily available to all.

Not sure why data "has to be challenged", other than when it appears to disagree with someone's predisposition, but as we used to get told at Uni... please set out your working. I'd be generally interested.

Regrettably my attachment with Edmonton Cycle Lane usage did not attach. Hopefully this time ....

Of course we should be confident in the data, though I cant see any reason for LBE to provide inaccurate figures ; easier for them to do nothing. Perhaps what’s most important is the materiality of the figures - if I was hit by a car whether it’s doing 60, 70 or 80 is immaterial - I’m a goner. In fact I don’t fancy being hit by any vehicle doing more than 20. The only advantage of a low speed is that I might have time to get out of the way.

I wonder if the low usage figures in Edmonton are related to the danger of cycling to the cycle lanes? Only when we have a good network of low traffic neighbourhoods will the cycle lanes on through routes get full usage. All the more reason to expedite Fox Lane’s walking and cycling friendly ltn as a exemplar for the Borough.

On the previous page Adrian Day said this about the amount of use being made of the A105 Green Lanes cycle lanes:

"I wonder if the low usage figures in Edmonton are related to the danger of cycling to the cycle lanes? Only when we have a good network of low traffic neighbourhoods will the cycle lanes on through routes get full usage. All the more reason to expedite Fox Lane’s walking and cycling friendly 'LTN' as a exemplar for the Borough.

I agree, but I'm equally sure that, compared with the period before the 'car age' - defined perhaps as the period from the 1960's until now - a very much smaller proportion of the population cycle, and many younger people have weaker cycling skills, or simply cannot ride a two-wheeled bike. It is going to take a long, long time, and much persuasion, to make up that deficit. Most people now think 'car', not'bike'.

I was intrigued why the council would produce supposed accurate data for low speed vehicles and traffic volumes but allow inaccurate data to pass for the outrageous speeders, roughly those outliers in the 60-100mph bucket. (50mph is not unusual and will have been experienced by any group standing in high viz with a speed gun on our streets; that’s even with a bunch in high viz pointing a speed gun at you – most drivers brake.) I almost went as far as starting some Newtonian maths to see just how fast a car could reach in a 400m street having entered it at 20mph and stopping to zero at the other end. I found better things to do.
Standing at the roadside the other day as a speeder went past in a whoosh, I smelt an answer: going back a few years to a car crashing into a parked vehicle on Aldermans Hill, where under its bonnet was a nonstandard engine that ran on non-standard fuel, and here were the distinctive exhaust gases from one such. There’s enough of these idiots not only drag racing up the A10 but running laps locally and generally showing their technical expertise and overall bravado to more than answer the apparent discrepancy with what is physically possible by the manuals.

David, the latest figures from Cycle Enfield show the number of cycle journeys are plummeting month by month. Even last year they were over 35% higher and the weather is very mild for winter. Some months are 50% down on last year. The only other thought it whether cyclists are avoiding the main routes and data is not being picked up as a result? Hertford Road and Fore Street are almost devoid of cyclists as well.

....... seem to be more of those electric scooter things though. After being prompted by the cycle lane introduction i did spend a year navigating Fox Lane to get to Southgate before finally concluding i was no longer prepared to take the risk, locked the bike away in the shed and now walk / bus instead.

Is there a cycle scheme on Fore Street? Conscious it's not part of the EMH scheme running from PG to Enfield. Though I try my best to avoid Edmonton if possible....

Not sure why a cyclist would want more cars on Green Lanes. As a cyclist, I can see the council's current LTN plan funnels a massive amount of displaced traffic onto the already congested green lanes. Traffic comprised of residents going about their daily lives. Traffic that won't magically evaporate. So Green Lanes and the underused cycle lanes will be more even more hazardous.

Not sure why a cyclist would want more cars on Green Lanes. As a cyclist myself, I can see the council's current LTN plan funnels a massive amount of displaced traffic onto the already congested green lanes. Traffic in part comprised of residents going about their daily lives - school drop offs etc. Traffic that won't magically evaporate. So Green Lanes and the woefully unused cycle lanes will be more even more hazardous.

1) Green Lane have segregated cycle lanes for cyclists (and scooterists!) so extra vehicular traffic shouldn't be too much of an issue...
2) Didn't the traffic show that a large proportion of the LTN traffic was not, in fact, local residents "going about their business". It was actually people cutting through between Fox/Bourne and Aldermans.

There certainly is. It goes from a couple of hundred yards from the junction with the North Circular to Edmonton Green and then up the Hertford Road. The Fore St section is a mixture of marked lanes (no dividers), some bits on the pavement as shared spaces and bus boarders and it weaves in and out not always in a straight line. At Edmonton Green is the famous Dutch style circular junction and from there it heads up Hertford Road again, without dividers. As a consequence cars are often parked on the lanes especially where the wedding venues are located and since much of this is at night there is little of no visible enforcement. It cost a bit less than the scheme in Green Lanes but is a white elephant because there was never that much cycle commuting in the first place and nothing like the scale of Palmers Green.

Interesting. As I say, I tend to avoid the area as much as possible so hadn't seen it myself. Wonder in Enfield actually paid for that one, unlike EMH, or whether it was centrally funded by TfL as well....

Sounds a bit rubbish, tbh, as a scheme...

I'll start this contribution by referring back to David Berkovitch's comment on the the 31st January to the effect that he was: "Not sure why a cyclist would want more cars on Green Lanes" referring to the effect that the Council's proposal to push rat-runners on the Lakes Estate onto Green Lanes would have. I agree with him, but I suspect that the Council's logic was that the rise in traffic on Green Lanes would have the effect of persuading some drivers to travel by other means (bus, train, bike) or a different route. Time will tell, but it is certainly true that some, perhaps many, people drive when there are alternative choices. In a big town or city that is not a wise choice other than in exceptional circumstance such as difficulty with walking to appropriate public transport.

David, Hi, the cycle lane scheme in Fore St is part of the same plan as the rest of Enfield and is described on the Cycle Enfield website. There was an overall budget of something like £38m via funding from the Mayor of London which was divided between the different parts of the borough. The most costly being the Green Lanes route which was just under £9m. However there were overruns and works that had to be redone etc. and I have heard of figures of £2m which which council had to underwrite. The scheme borough-wide has not even been completely implemented and some sections have been dropped altogether.

Interesting. Well at least if part of EMH then TfL paid for it not the Council as widely mis-reported.

As I understand it most of the money for the A105 Green Lanes cycle lanes came from the Government via Boris Johnson (if I have it right the Government's contribution was £100 million which was divided more or less equally between three London boroughs when Boris was mayor of London), although various organisations chipped in with smaller amounts of money for Enfield as time went on.

As all levels of Government attitudes to cycling are changing, partly because of space problems (a driver-only car needs an awful lot of space for one little person especially when the necessary gap between cars is taken into account), but also because of pressure to improve air quality; even tyres affect air quality.

The Council was given a grant of £30 million, they had to fine £12 million themselves,,,,no wonder some services are facing cuts. Not sure who is paying for remedial works either.

Others have a better handle on the figures than me (Karl, perhaps) but I don't those where the numbers when the scheme started. Enfield only needed to chip in a couple of mill. If mis-management has caused cost over-runs meaning that Council has had to dip into its pockets further then that isn't a problem with the scheme, just typical public sector inefficiency.

Might help if useless drivers didn't keep driving into things though......

Urban myths never die: somewhere, long ago, I posted a copy of the relevant Cabinet paper showing the contributions to the original spend. None came from Enfield. What happened with any overruns and such I don’t know but TfL build in a hefty contingency element (something like 30% by memory) in funded projects to cover all but the extreme scenario.
Worth also adding that all of LBE’s transport related spends (see eg this week’s Cabinet papers on medium term plans and budgets) must align with TFL’s strategy, because they fund it, and as I’ve also pointed out in previous postings, the TfL strategy, aka the Mayors Transport Strategy / London Plan, is very clear in its direction of travel – feet, two wheels, public transport are good, cars however do not get a cheer.