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

Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

Enfield Council's revised plans for the Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood, which were published today, will dramatically reduce traffic and associated pollution, noise and road danger over a large area of residential streets stretching from Palmers Green to Southgate. Subject to approval by the deputy council leader, the proposals will be implemented on a trial basis for six months starting this summer.

The trial will also serve as a 6-month formal consultation period, during which the council will also carry out monitoring of the effect on roads outside the area. Depending on the results of both, the scheme will either be discontinued, modified or made permanent.

Leaflets showing the new scheme were today distributed to homes in the neighbourhood, and more detailed information has been uploaded to the Let's Talk Enfield website, along with an explanatory video.

fox lane qn redesign july 2020The revised Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood scheme - click on the image to enlarge

Compared with the controversial proposals that were published last year, the new scheme has far fewer "modal filters" (ie obstacles to prevent cars driving through) and they will be mostly located at the Fox Lane end of roads coming off Aldermans Hill. Many drivers will thus have more direct routes to their destinations in the area. Gates near the railway bridge in Fox Lane and near the junction of Meadway and Bourne Avenue will allow through emergency services and waste collection vehicles, while preventing access by other vehicles..

Dramatically reduced traffic in the area

By preventing drivers from cutting through the area, the scheme will lead to falls in traffic of 75 per cent or more in the busiest streets, such as Meadway, Amberley Road, Greenway and Old Park Road, while Fox Lane itself could experience a reduction of 90 per cent or more.

Table: Estimated effect of scheme on traffic flows*

(If the table is not displaying properly, click here)

  Existing (2019 survey) Estimated post-scheme % reduction
  7AM-7PM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 7AM-7PM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 7AM-7PM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bourne Avenue (N) 1600-1700 200-300 100-200 500-600 0-50 0-50 65-75% 85-95% 80-90%
Parkway 200-300 0-50 0-50 100-200 0-50 0-50 35-45% No change No change
The Ridgeway 100-200 0-50 0-50 100-200 0-50 0-50 0-10% No change No change
Greenway 2000-3000 200-300 200-300 500-600 50-100 50-100 75-85% 85-95% 85-95%
Fox Lane (W) 5000-6000 500-600 500-600 700-800 200-300 200-300 80-90% 55-65% 50-60%
Amberley Read 3000-4000 300-400 300-400 600-700 100-200 50-100 75-85% 50-60% 75-85%
St George's Road 1100-1200  100-200 100-200 300-400 100-200 100-200 65-75% No change No change
Craniey Gardens 500-600 50-100 50-100 400-500 0-50 0-50 15-25% 60-70% 60-70%
Burford Gardens 600-700 50-100 50-100 500-600 0-50 0-50 10-20% 60-70% 60-70%
Caversham Avenue 800-900 100-200 50-100 400-500 50-100 0-50 45-55% 45-55% 60-70%
Fox Lane (E) 5000-6000 600-700 500-600 500-600 100-200 100-200 85-95% 85-95% 85-95%
Devonshire Road 600-700 50-100 50-100 300-400 0-50 0-50 40-50% 60-70% 60-70%
Old Park Road 1700-1800 200-300 50-100 400-500 100-200 0-50 70-80% 35-55% 60-70%
Groveland Road 1100-1200 100-200 100-200 400-500 0-50 0-50 55-65% 45-55% 80-90%
Lakeside Road 500-600 50-100 50-100 400-500 0-50 0-50 15-25% 60-70% 60-70%
Denvent Road 600-700 50-100 50-100 400-500 50-100 50-100 25-35% No change No change
Ulleswater Road 600-700 50-100 50-100 500-600 0-50 0-50 10-20% 60-70% 60-70%
Conway Road 600-700 100-200 0-50 400-500 0-50 0-50 25-35% 80-90% No change
Selborne Road 1600-1700 100-200 100-200 500-600 100-200 50-100 65-75% No change 45-55%
The Mall 2000-3000 300-400 300-400 600-700 100-200 0-50 70-80% 50-60% 85-95%
Oakfield Road 400-500 0-50 0-50 400-500 0-50 0-50 0-10% No change No change
Meadway (S) 3000-4000  500-600 400-500 300-400 50-100 100-200 85-75% 65-75% 35-45%

 *The numbers shown in the table indicate the total number of vehicles on the road - both with a local origin or destination, and traffic cutting through the area

Impact on surrounding roads

While estimating the effect on traffic volumes within the area is relatively easy, forecasting what will happen on surrounding roads is much less straightforward. There is ample evidence of "traffic evaporation" following the introduction of low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere. This reflects the fact that traffic is not an uncontrollable elemental force of nature, it is the result of human behaviour, and schemes such as this are designed to change behaviour, to encourage less driving and more active travel - walking, riding bikes, using public transport - and to move longer distance travel back to the strategic roads where it belongs and which it would have used before satnav made it easy for drivers to navigate complex routes designed to shave a small amount of time off their journeys, to the detriment of people living along the routes.

With streets inside the area being quieter and safer, and with cleaner air, some residents will walk to destinations outside the area when they previously would have driven, thus removing traffic. Some of the drivers that currently cut through the area will use completely different routes that may not go anywhere near Palmers Green or Southgate. Given time, new patterns of travel will emerge. There's no reliable way of forecasting what they will be - a sufficiently long trial is the most effective way to find out.

Next steps

Council officers are currently drafting a formal report that sets out the details of the design, including all the previous engagement and feedback received. This report will then be submitted to the deputy council leader, Ian Barnes, who is the primary decision maker for this neighbourhood project.

Subject to formal approval a trial of this design will commence over the summer. Any trial would take place using a process of experimental traffic orders. It is at the point of the start of a trial where formal consultation opens for a period of six months, with residents able to provide comments once they have had the opportunity to experience the trial working in practice. At the end of the 6-month review period, a decision will be made on whether to remove the trial, make changes or make the project permanent. This decision will be informed by the community feedback collected throughout the consultation during the trial period.

Once the formal report has been approved, it will be published on the project page. The council will then send a letter to all properties within the area to inform people of the decision.

If the trial is going ahead, this letter will provide more information on specific timelines and further detail on how additional feedback can be provided as part of the formal consultation process.

To find out more visit: letstalk.enfeld.gov.uk/foxlaneQN

Links

Let's Talk Enfield: Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood

Fox Lane quieter neighbourhood leaflet - July 2020

Slides with data visualisations

Log in to comment
Darren McCarthy posted a reply
09 Jul 2020 19:58
I live on Aldermans Hill and this scheme is a disaster for the residents on the surrounding roads. It is pushing all the traffic onto the outer roads and there is no mention of improving the safety of these roads. The junction of Aldermans Hill and Cannon Hill is a notorious blackspot yet nothing has been done to it in 10 years. This whole scheme is a snobbish attempt to push unwanted traffic into other areas. It has to go somewhere. You are going to have countless delivery vans doing U-turns on the blocked up roads and the roads are not wide enough if cars are parked everywhere. The consultation shows most residents are against this. Is there some sort of protest group acting against this scheme or a judicial review in progress?
Adrian Day posted a reply
09 Jul 2020 20:48
I agree there will need to be measures on surrounding roads - and that junction is dangerous. Experience with similar LTNs shows there is traffic evaporation as people within the area walk and cycle rather than drive short journeys whilst others replan their journeys. There was both opposition and support for the previous scheme, but this is a new design which takes into account feedback - the consultation will be during the trial. If we are to address societal issues of pollution, safety, obesity, noise then there needs to be action to support active travel and reduce unnecessary car use. I can assure you there's nothing 'snobbish' behind the plans - I understand Enfield Council have plans for LTNs throughout the Borough.
Alex Lyness posted a reply
10 Jul 2020 20:26
Darren McCarthy wrote:

I live on Aldermans Hill and this scheme is a disaster for the residents on the surrounding roads. It is pushing all the traffic onto the outer roads and there is no mention of improving the safety of these roads. The junction of Aldermans Hill and Cannon Hill is a notorious blackspot yet nothing has been done to it in 10 years. This whole scheme is a snobbish attempt to push unwanted traffic into other areas. It has to go somewhere. You are going to have countless delivery vans doing U-turns on the blocked up roads and the roads are not wide enough if cars are parked everywhere. The consultation shows most residents are against this. Is there some sort of protest group acting against this scheme or a judicial review in progress?


Agreed the surrounding roads need measures as well but the council have to start somewhere.

On the u-turn point. Thames water recently closed our road at one end for a few days. All the delivery vans and trucks managed fine with u-turns and there was no traffic apocalypse on our street that I could see. Given lockdown has increased delivery vans/trucks this suggests they’ll manage just fine. A trial will help surface any issues.
Adrian Day posted a reply
11 Jul 2020 10:08
And of course roads such as Cannon Broad and Broomfield Avenue seem to manage very well, along with the hundreds of other cul-de-sacs and filtered roads in Enfield. Indeed most new developments are planned almost entirely with cul de sacs and one or two entry/exit points.
Karl Brown posted a reply
12 Jul 2020 11:30
I would agree that the Aldermans Hill / Cannon Hill junction should see close scrutiny for active as well as motor travel. The same, long running, argument applies to the Green Lanes / Hedge Lane / Bourne Hill junction, which is also dreadful to cross. I would add to focus on an increasing prevalence of zebra-blind drivers on Aldermans Hill; always an issue but seemingly deteriorating.

I don’t buy the argument that the traffic, “has to go somewhere”. The same is often used regarding waste. Both start from the premise that it’s there to begin with; that is where the real aspect of choice lies.
Neil Littman posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 08:54
Be interested to know what the results of a traffic flow survey in the Fox Lane area would be if it were repeated now since Covid-19. I have been through the area several times doing medical deliveries and things have quietened down considerably.
Simon Broughton posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 09:13
I still see no reason why residents in these streets cannot have exclusive access to all their streets by the use of RFID on the barriers. It's cheap and simple yet the idea has been repeatedly ignored. There is no valid reason why those of us who live in these streets should be penalised unfairly by being forced to travel in only one direction into the inconvenience of a traffic jam. I don't think any of us are going to make avoidable and unnecessary journeys. I regard this as a form of bullying.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 09:24
Before I start, letstalk.enfeld.gov.uk/foxlaneQN doesn't work

The closure at the end of Fox Lane totally ignores the large amount of elderly people who live on Pellipar Close, opposite the Fox Pub car park (now a development site!). They, and their nurses, carers and family, will now have to use the extremely dangerous and poorly planned, Fox Lane/Green Lanes junction for every journey/visit as there is no other access.

My mother, who lives there, has a carer visit twice a day from East Barnet who will now have to make two unnecessary right turns, one from Bourne Hill on to Green Lanes, and then one on to Fox Lane on each visit. This will add time to her journey as well as increasing pollution, which seems to be a major factor in this model.

I would ask that the Fox Lane gate be moved or, better still, removed altogether and the roads left to work as they always have, and did long before 90%+ of the residents moved in to the area.
Simon Broughton posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 09:33
I wholeheartedly agree. This whole thing is a dogmatic political policy which ignores the rights of the people who live here. I think we all agree that a scheme is needed but it can easily be modified to help everyone who has a good reason for being here. This is what has been ignored. It's unfair and not necessary to impose these restrictions on us when there is a better solution.
Adrian Day posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 13:14
Research shows the vast majority of journeys by car in London are under a mile - many (not all) could be made by walking or cycling. Everyone can leave either end of the street, but only one end in a vehicle. For many of us the bullying comes from lorries, cars and vans speeding down our streets giving out noise and pollution. And if you want to see real bullying stand at the south end of Old Park Road and watch a parent with small children, an elderly person or someone on a mobility scooter cross the road - or worst of all, any of these groups crossing the road during rush hours. And remember a third of residents in Enfield don't have access to a car.
Adrian Day posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 13:22
On the contrary those elderly people who are able to walk or use mobility aids will have a much safer, quieter, less polluted journey to the shops or Broomfield Park. Similar LTNs in other parts of London have led to a total reduction in pollution. And the roads in the Fox Lane neighbourhood may work for rat runners but not for the 3000 or so residents of the neighbourhood who have polluting vehicles bringing noise, pollution and danger to their roads. I'm sorry the carer will have a few minutes extra on his/her journey but no solution is 100% perfect.
Richard Carlowe posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 15:01
Except the vast majority can't walk and rely on transportation in some form or other. The shocking state of the pavements in that area also inhibits any walking.

The scheme is not designed for elderly people and is poorly thought out and totally unnecessary and unjustified
David Hughes posted a reply
16 Jul 2020 22:52
Speaking as someone who will be 83 years old next month I find Richard C's remark about the state of our pavements........................amazing. Personally I walk (and cycle) around the Lakes Estate quite a bit, and rarely find a problem other than an occasional inconsiderate driver.

But let us just dwell a moment on who has suffered most from the car age: children. The freedoms I had as a child have been stolen by cars. The Lakes Estate will probably never match my experience because I'm old, but we can redress some of the damage that cars have done to neighbourliness in our local streets.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
23 Jul 2020 10:59
Adrian Day wrote:

Research shows the vast majority of journeys by car in London are under a mile - many (not all) could be made by walking or cycling.


Does this indicate that the "vast majority" of the 600-700 vehicles passing down my street between 7am and 7pm (according to the 2019 survey figures) are also making journeys of "under a mile"? One wonders *who* is driving these vehicles, and indeed *where* they are going?

The 'Estimated Post-Scheme' figures for the same 7am to 7pm period on my street are 500-600 vehicles, which leaves me even more nonplussed. If the "vast majority" of those estimated 500-600 vehicles are still making journeys of "under a mile", then where will they be going to, and from?

Would you cite the source for the research which supports the "under a mile" data please? I would be very interested to look into it further, and especially in how it might apply to the Fox Lane scheme. I'm far from convinced. Thank you.
Karl Brown posted a reply
24 Jul 2020 10:22
I don't know the specific research being discussed but remain in long term shock from the analysis in the original Mini Holland bid document, an analysis I've since seen repeated in TfL papers. This shows a majority of car journeys to be cycleable and a significant minority walkable. It was instrumental in my own car miles dropping from 6000 pa at the time to last years 168.
Alan Thomas posted a reply
26 Jul 2020 10:31
Karl Brown wrote:

I don't know the specific research being discussed but remain in long term shock from the analysis in the original Mini Holland bid document, an analysis I've since seen repeated in TfL papers. This shows a majority of car journeys to be cycleable and a significant minority walkable. It was instrumental in my own car miles dropping from 6000 pa at the time to last years 168.


Thank you for the graph, but - clearly - it doesn't show anything like the "vast majority" of "under a mile" journeys that are being claimed, and I remain sceptical.

Your drop from 6,000 miles per annum to 168 per annum is impressive, but - again - it doesn't seem to support the "less than a mile" assertion. A 6,000 mile pa use would average out at just over 16 miles per day. If the "vast majority" of those 16 miles per day were for trips of "under a mile" you would have been in, out, in, out and - presumably - shaking it all about...

I remain unconvinced of the 'vast majority under a mile' assertion, and it only adds to my suspicion that some of the 'data' we are having put before us requires far deeper scrutiny.
Karl Brown posted a reply
26 Jul 2020 18:19
Alan Thomas may have missed my main theme in his latest posting and falls into a trap that’s worth highlighting. As I said, it’s for Adrian Day to prove his case but I do have an inkling that the vast majority of journeys will be under one mile; that’s all journeys and not those simply viewed from behind a windscreen, for how streets and roads are addressed as transport routes affects all, not simply those with, or having access to, a car.
What the previous chart does indicate is that the vast majority of Enfield’s car journeys were less than 3 miles. That’s walking distance for this household (and probably the bus back to be fair).
The working of my stats runs into the Bill Gates turning up at a Crisis at Christmas centre and suddenly everyone there is on average a multi-multi-millionaire analysis risk. In my case my extended driving holiday of well over 5000 miles might well have skewed Alan Thomas’ conclusion reached in his posting, if it happened. As with Covid, you need K as well as R; average without spread risks a misleading conclusion.
What we can say is that there are lots of relatively short journeys which are capable of being made by means other than a car and, like tax changes, the active travel initiatives now spooling rapidly out of Enfield, the GLA and HMG will see what various individual perceptions will conclude are some winners as well as some losers.
I’m all for fully evidenced commentary, helping lead to supportable concussions.
Shane Gibson posted a reply
28 Jul 2020 13:44
Unfortunately this is another example of where the council aren't listening to the residents. At the meeting in Palmers Green I would say at least 75% there said they didn't want it. They didn't say they wanted the scope of the scheme reduced, they said they didn't want it in any shape. This is just another example of council staff having to justify their existence.

The notion that traffic will evaporate is dubious at best, people don't get in their cars and drive around Palmers Green for a laugh. No one is leaving their car at home to do the weeks shopping or put their kids on a bike to do the school run. It's a fantasy. Anyone who rides a bike understands that an incline, let alone a hill, is tough; try getting on a bike and cycle up Fox Lane. Bike take up will be limited and short lived at best.

Green Lanes is already a traffic black spot, the idea that you would funnel cars up Aldermans hill and Cannon Lane/High Street on one side and Green Lanes and The Bourne the other is ignoring the reality. It doesn't take a genius to see that funnelling the cars up to Southgate roundabout is a ridiculous idea (which has been strangely left of the map and is currently another hold up point with the current traffic levels).

Finally, the traffic pre-lock down actually wasn't that bad most of the time, and at the moment it's quiet all the time. Pre-lockdown for an hour or so, twice a day during rush hour time, it was busy, but for the rest of the time it's insignificant to most of the roads. The Mall gets more traffic than most, but the other roads are generally fine, unless there's an accident on the North Circular. I think the only changes that need to be made are to just slow the cars shooting down the roads between Fox Lane and Aldermans Hill (Old Park Rd, Lakeside Rd, etc).
David Hughes posted a reply
28 Jul 2020 23:03
I'd say that Shane G. hasn't been listening! Just today Boris Johnson, also known as the Prime Minister, has been talking about encouraging people to exercise more frequently on feet and 'bike', and creating more cycle lanes and other changes to support that proposition. That coincidence does not directly affect the discussion in this thread, but it certainly suggests that there are more powerful voices suggesting that we can't go on automatically stepping into a car when walking, cycling or public transport would be a better bet.

As to the 'fantasy' of cycling or walking the school run perhaps that depends to a large extent on whether drivers begin walking, cycling or using public transport more often to the benefit of their health, London's air quality and kids freedoms.

It so happens that I Iive quite close to Fox Lane and it is fairly steep, but I'm 83 and cycle up it several times a week. Sure it's hard work on a 'bike, but certainly not steep enough to deter a healthy teenager or older person. Boris J. would certainly agree with that.

On one thing Shane G. and I can agree: the need to reduce traffic speed on the residential streets on the Lakes Estate. Fortunately the Council's plans will help with that.
Adrian Day posted a reply
30 Jul 2020 07:48
Apologies I can’t find the ‘under a mile source‘ - seems I was wrong but these stats from a GLA report on Healthy Transport make the same point i.e. that a large percentage of car journeys in London can be made by bike or on foot. The good news is both national and local governments of different colours are now pushing policies, actions and funding to sustainable travel and our vehicle dominated residential streets will be getting the changes they need.

Alan Thomas posted a reply
30 Jul 2020 09:39
Adrian Day wrote:

Apologies I can’t find the ‘under a mile source‘ - seems I was wrong but these stats...


Thank you for confirming that you were presenting falsehoods as 'facts'.

And please excuse me for not swallowing your attached 'stats' whole either. The 'Trip Distance' data comes from the 2013-14 TfL Travel Demand Survey, of which I am extremely sceptical. I cannot see how such data could be compiled accurately in the first place (does anyone here remember having been asked where they were going by the people taking this survey?) but in any case it will already be out of date. Covid-19 has changed everything.
PGC Webmaster posted a reply
30 Jul 2020 13:34
Alan Thomas wrote:

Adrian Day wrote:

Apologies I can’t find the ‘under a mile source‘ - seems I was wrong but these stats...


Thank you for confirming that you were presenting falsehoods as 'facts'.

And please excuse me for not swallowing your attached 'stats' whole either. The 'Trip Distance' data comes from the 2013-14 TfL Travel Demand Survey, of which I am extremely sceptical. I cannot see how such data could be compiled accurately in the first place (does anyone here remember having been asked where they were going by the people taking this survey?) but in any case it will already be out of date. Covid-19 has changed everything.


Alan Thomas is banned from the forums for calling another member a liar. Adrian, on the other hand, had grace to apologise for making a claim that he could substantiate.

And why ask Adrian for the source of his information if you're not going to trust any statistics about travel?

Clicky