Responding to Cycle Enfield’s consultation on Hertford Road (A1010 North)

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 12.32.01

If you haven’t done so already, please respond to Cycle Enfield’s plans for the northern stretch of the Hertford Road (from the Southbury Road junction northwards). The deadline is 23 September, and you can respond here. Even if you’re not a resident in that part of the borough, please support it! There is real potential for the scheme to regenerate this more deprived area of Enfield, giving greater mobility to households without cars and improving health and air quality for everyone by making active travel easier. 

For a quick response, you can just fill in three pages of this form: who you are, whether you support it overall, and a separate final page on whether you support the junction with Southbury Road (we hope you do – it looks great). Feel free to either copy our response below, or preferably put it into your own words, if you agree.

It’s then optional to comment on each page of the design, and we’ve also provided our responses below.

Scheme overall

Support: Yes

Enfield Cycling Campaign welcomes this design as a significant opportunity to make cycling a viable transport option for many more people in Edmonton. It could be transformational, increasing mobility for households without access to a car, and reducing the need for car journeys for commuting, shopping and the school run.

However, for a significant modal shift to happen, we think that more attention needs to be given to linking the A1010 with important east-west routes across the borough. There needs to be easier and safer turns for cycles into junctions such as with Green Street, Carterhatch Lane, Turkey Street, Ordnance Road and Unity Road. Also:

Better train-bike links: safe direct cycle routes needed to Enfield Lock and Turkey Street stations and sufficient cycle parking.

Track width: 1.8m should be the minimum, except where passing bus stops to slow cyclists – here minimum can be just over 1.2m for accessible cycling. We are also not clear on whether the width of the track refers to the distance between the kerb and the inner edge of the orcas, i.e. whether it is all useable width.

Crossings: We would like to see more crossings for cycles alongside pedestrian crossings.

Side roads: Many have no entry treatment – we recognise the budget restraints but would like this addressed with follow-up funding where possible.

Bus stops: The default should be bus stop bypasses, not bus boarders, where space allows – especially where there is high pedestrian footfall.

How important to you are the inclusion of the below ideas in the overall scheme?

We gave ‘5’ to all with the exception of ‘convenient car parking’, at ‘2’.

Feedback on the consultation process

We put ‘Agree’ for all three statements.

Page 1. Southbury Road to Broadlands Avenue

Support: Partially

  • The cycle track is narrow – down to 1.5m in places.
  • Side roads Durant, Brecon, The Ride, Broadlands have no entry treatment. Broadlands entry also needs a tighter radius.

Page 2. Broadlands Avenue to Tyberry Road

Support: Partially

  • Cycle track narrow.
  • A bus bypass not boarder would be better southbound. This is a busy area at certain times of day with students leaving / arriving at the college.
  • Tighter radii needed at Broadlands Avenue and Wickham Close
  • From Tyberry Road, not clear how cycles will access the cycle crossing in order to turn south or use the greenway eastbound. However, we welcome the raised table at this junction.

Page 3. Tyberry Road to Cedar Avenue

Support: Partially

  • Cycle track narrow
  • Will priority for people cycling be apparent at the raised table area at Brick Lane?

Green Street:

  • We liked the fact that cyclists can safely pass the Green Street junction north-south
  • How do cycles turn right from the northbound lane into Green Street? Is there a gap in the kerb (where the dropped kerb is shown) to pass through? Perhaps allow cyclists a traffic light and waiting area here.
  • It does not look easy to turn left into Green Street. Perhaps allow cycles a free left turn into Green Street with a give way at the road.
  • How will cycles safely turn right from Green Street to A1010? This movement looks hostile.

Page 4. Cedar Avenue to Palmers Lane

Support: Partially

  • The Carterhatch Lane junction has high traffic volumes in all directions and we felt it was not suitable for a roundabout, especially for facilitating east-west cycling. This junction would probably be better if signalised. There is only one cycle crossing in this design – another parallel crossing to the south would enable crossing to/from Cedar Ave. The lanes have sharping turning angles for cyclists, giving a poor line of sight when approaching from the left, i.e. cars will be behind them. so it would be difficult for cyclists to anticipate when a driver does not obey priority. Multiple approach lanes create more risk for cyclists as well.
  • A bus bypass southbound would be preferable.
  • More entry treatments for side roads welcome when funding allows.
  • Zebra crossing near Palmers Road/Addison Road could be changed to tiger crossings to enable cyclists to access these side roads.
  • We welcome the exit-only at Carterhatch Road in reducing hook risk for cycles and pedestrians crossing the side road.

Page 5. Palmers Lane to East Road

Support: Partially

  • Cycle track narrows to 1.7m in places
  • Could Pitfield Way be filtered to allow ease of access by bike? Radius needs tightening.
  • Has cycle access to Durants School (and bike parking) been considered?
  • Zebra near Albany Park Avenue could be a tiger crossing
  • We would prefer a bus bypass rather than a boarder (northbound), as the space seems to be sufficient. The service road option forces northbound cyclists to take a detour and give way twice, and may well be ignored.
  • How will right turns for cycles into/out of Hoe Lane and East Road be made safe? Could there be a cycle crossing?

Page 6. East Road to Elmhurst Road

Support: Partially

  • We welcome the cycle path across the entrance of Eastfield Road. Will the track be demarcated from the rest of the road by colour or material?
  • The zebras near Eastfield Road and Grove Road West/Albany Road could be tiger crossings. Eastfield Road gives access to Oasis Academy and needs to allow a safe right turn for students cycling.
  • Cycling between two rows of parked cars looks a little intimidating on the service road.

Page 7. Elmhurst Road to Totteridge Road

Support: Partially

  • Cycle track narrow – down to 1.5/1.6m in places
  • The Turkey Street junction does not look safe for cycles to turn right into or out of. This is an important east-west link as well as access for commuters to Turkey Street station. More thought needs to be given to this junction.
  • Left hook risk Amhurst Close – the radius needs tightening. Cycle parking at superstore?

Ordnance Road junction looks hostile for cycling. This is another important east-west route, and leads to Enfield Lock station. More thought is needed here:

  • Could northbound cyclists be free to continue at all times, except giving way to the pedestrian crossing (rather than the early release)?
  • Right turn into or out of Ordnance Road does not look safe for cycles
  • Large width and multiple lanes increases risk for cyclists
  • Unity Road junction also looks hostile:
  • Right turn into or out of Unity Road does not look safe for bikes
  • Large width and multiple lanes increases risk for cyclists
  • We did not understand the ‘Ahead only movement for cyclists’

Page 8. Totteridge Road to Holly Road

Support: Partially

  • Cycle lane narrow at 1.7m
  • Could zebra near Aylands Road be a tiger crossing?

Page 9. Holly Road to Bullsmoor Lane

Support: Partially

  • Cycle lane narrow at 1.7m
  • The Bullsmoor/Mollison Ave junction looks promising

Page 10. A110 / A1010 junction

Support: Yes

This junction looks very promising and close to a Dutch-style simultaneous green for cycles. We were impressed with this design for making cycling much safer at such a busy and difficult junction.

19 thoughts on “Responding to Cycle Enfield’s consultation on Hertford Road (A1010 North)

  1. Rostopher

    What’s promising about the Bullsmoor/Mollison Ave junction? Still looks to be a horrible motorway junction with slip lanes and 4 crossing needed to go north/south and major deviations from pedestrian desire lines. Why not ask for something more like the A110 / A1010 junction?

    1. Clare Rogers Post author

      Thanks for the comment. It’s certainly worth asking in the consultation for the design of the A110/A1010 junction to be used elsewhere as far as possible. My understanding is that UK traffic regs make this design difficult where there is less space, but I’m not an expert!

  2. Lee

    It is shocking that people who don’t live in the Hertford Road area are encouraging other people who also don’t live in the area to complete this consultation with suggested words to copy, with such an obvious bias towards cycling and without due regard to the effect that cycle lanes along the road will have on residents and local businesses. There are people living along the Hertford Road, businesses and churches who will be significantly affected (negatively) by these proposals.

    1. Clare Rogers Post author

      It’s because we think that the scheme will have such a good effect on residents and local business, as all the evidence shows (I hope you have read the evidence on this website before forming your opinion), that we’re promoting it throughout the borough. And some of our members do indeed live in the area in question, while others regularly travel through it. But you are welcome to make your own response to the consultation as you see fit.

      1. Lee

        Yes I have read the evidence, some of which relates to Palmers Green rather than the Hertford Road, and some of which talks about places which are not comparable to the Hertford Road such as Broadway in Salt Lake City, a street that is far wider than the Hertford Road, which has along lengths of it a central refuge / partition between each side of the road and which has extensive parking along most of its length, as viewed on google maps. None of this answers the question of where the residents along the Hertford Road will park their cars when their spaces are removed. Neither does the evidence explain where the worshippers to the Churches along the Hertford Road will park on Sundays, it doesnt explain where the funeral and wedding attendees will park once the current parking is removed and where the customers will do drive will park their cars when using the local shops.
        Why should these people suffer so that a few people can cycle ? Surely the needs of the many (who don’t cycle) should outweigh the needs of the few (who do cycle). Or if not outweigh, at least be given some consideration rather than bulldozing through a scheme which appears to predominantly cater for cyclists at the expense of local residents and businesses.
        Not everyone has a bike and not all journeys can be replaced by bike. I have heard that the Council quotes that currently 1% of journeys are by bike and that they want to increase that to 5%.
        The disruption and inconvenience that the cycle lanes will cause along sections of the Hertford Road is disproportionate to the very few,1-5%, of journeys that may take place on the cycle lanes.
        Why should your cycle group push so hard to create such a problem for so many people living along the Hertford Road, without due regard for the effect that the cycle lanes will have on the area ?

        1. Danny


          I just want to pick up a couple of your points. First, I don’t live on the Hertford Road, but I do come through the area both in my car and on bike. Frankly, I try to avoid coming by bike if I at all can help it, and I’m a confident cyclist – the road conditions are really poor and dangerous, and I’m in favour of the proposals primarily from the point of view of protecting the vulnerable (which includes me when I’m riding too!). Second, another key reason for supporting this (and this is a wholly valid reason) is there’s a knock-on effect – I live in Haringey and I’m envious of what’s going on in Enfield! I want the same to happen here, and feel strongly that the positive effects of the scheme will help change opinions here and will lead to similar changes in the roads (e.g. down through Wood Green and Tottenham – the difference in road conditions at the borough boundary will be stark!). Of course this is contingent on things actually changing in Enfield, so I support this strongly and hope that this goes through. Needless to say I’m filling in the consultation to make my views known.

          Just hearing some of the SOS Green Lanes criticism of the Green Lanes scheme, I can’t help but be struck that it’s entirely rational to oppose the scheme… if you believe the doomsday predictions being made of gridlock, pollution, lack of parking, businesses losing custom, grannies sent helter skelter by whizzing hoards of cyclists, while at the same time arguing that there so few cyclists that it’s not worthwhile (the irony!). Honestly, this is such an unlikely outcome: a) because that’s not what happens everywhere else such bikes lanes go in (you get *lots* more people cycling, very little changes in motor vehicle journey times, business gets a boost because you’ve got a whole bunch more people who can arrive on bike and you’ve also made the whole road a more attractive place); b) it’s not what the (very conservative) traffic models predict; c) if a doomsday meltdown of the roads system did occur, then things would change pretty fast due to public pressure (just because I support the scheme doesn’t mean that I support road chaos – I’m a driver too); d) it’s also against “common sense”, in that when I drive places, I wish I was cycling there and I wish every other car driver was also cycling, then the traffic wouldn’t be there. The primary reason I don’t cycle places is because it’s horrible to do so, so I either drive or cycle somewhere where it’s more pleasant. This is not a positive outcome for local businesses! Remember, the doomsday scenario is hypothetical and is not backed up by evidence – at the very least, if we want to change our local communities for the better (road safety, pollution, traffic, business), we should be willing to try something new, otherwise you never find out how things might be different.

          Sorry, bit of a ramble, but the final point I want to make is that e.g. in Ponders End something like 45% of households (households, not residents) don’t own a car. So, when you say, “surely the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few”, you’ve got it almost exactly backwards – car owners are in the minority and at the moment, the extremely car dominant roads are a blight on the lives of everyone else (e.g. not just cyclists, also pedestrians).

          All the best,


        2. Clare Rogers Post author

          Lee – I was going to reply but Danny has taken the words right out of my mouth!

          All I would add is that one reason we support the scheme so strongly is the public health aspect. (There’s also the fact that cycle lanes prevent gridlock and boost local business, but Danny has covered those.)

          We have got to give more people the opportunity to travel actively. The World Health Organisation, Public Health England and the NHS have all strongly urged government(s) to make walking and cycling easier in our cities. The most obvious way to do this is to design streets so that there is safe space for walking and cycling, including bike lanes on main roads. If that means that some parking is slightly less accessible (and in fact surveys show that the remaining parking in side streets will still cover demand) then it’s still a move in the right direction. Why give over so much space to cars, whether moving or parked, when they are so damaging to our health?

          Even a 5% switch from car journeys to bike journeys is worthwhile – that means fewer people at risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer burdening the NHS, because they are getting regular exercise. It also means marginally less toxic air for everyone to breathe. 5% may seem like a low target, but as the culture changes and more people see cycling as a normal way to get around, it could snowball.

          Our health is too important to mess around with. This is the right thing to do, and people complaining about parking (those that do own cars, that is) just sounds selfish.

    2. RIchard

      Change has to happen across London. Cycling schemes have to link up with one another and be across London for it to really work. It’s perfectly legitimate for people in other parts of London to think about the whole city and comment on things going on in other parts of the city. I’m sure you have thoughts about Syria, or Scottish independence or Donald Trump – no-one is telling you can’t because you don’t live there.

      We have our heads in the sand about the benefits the cars supposedly brings us. What Cycle Enfield brings us, across the borough and potentially across the city, is a whole new way of living. Our city cannot cope with the demand on the roads for traffic – noxious, polluting, inefficient, opportunity limiting cars being the worst offenders. I spent nearly an hour sat in traffic in the middle of the day today travelling between Finchley and Palmers Green. How nice it would have been to safely cycle there (or aren’t I allowed to have a view about what goes on in Barnet?).

      1. Lee

        What a ridiculous comparison – cycle lanes along Hertford Road to war in Syria or to Donald Trump – chalk and cheese I would say.
        Of course you can have a view about Barnet if you travel through there (why shouldnt you) but to encourage all sorts of people to take part in the consultation for the Hertford Road that is going to significantly affect the people who live here without explaining properly to those people what is being proposed is disingenuous.
        I understand that some people who are being encouraged to say Yes they support the scheme don’t know the area and the detail of the proposals such as how many parking spaces will be lost along the road. As they dont know the area they can’t make an informed judgement about the effect that cycle lanes will have on the area, but are being encouraged nevertheless to support the scheme for the benefit of an anticipated increase in journeys by bike to just 5%.
        There is something quite distasteful in doing that when it is going to cause problems for the people living along the Hertford Road.
        Why should I and my neighbours be inconvenienced because the consultation for my area has been flooded and skewed by people don’t live here ?
        Would you like me to contribute to a decision about your road that would negatively affect you although I don’t know your road and don’t travel along it ?
        I’m sure you would be uncomfortable about that and perhaps feel that my input might not be appropriate.
        But hey ho, I’m only a lowly person living along the Hertford Road – what does my opinion matter – not as much as the Enfield Cycling Campaign Group apparently

        1. Danny

          Lee, one more point, in that the consultation is not a vote, it’s a mechanism to gather opinion and register support or concerns. The fact that you may have valid concerns e.g. about parking outside your house, it not going to be diluted by e.g. me from Haringey being in support of the scheme. You concerns in the consultation are still valid and you should register them so they will be considered – after the Green Lanes consultation, stuff changed. It’s not a case that people from outside the area are trampling over residents – but our voice, as people who use Hertford Road too, also needs to be heard.

  3. David Coombs.

    The department of the council who have thought the idea for this and other parts of the A1010 have givern very little if any thought for the emergency services who have hard enough job of transisting the current road conditions,and which can only be made worse by the plans that include raised platforms etc at juctions narrowing of the carrageway by projecting bus stops out if the currant kerb line.all of which will cause delay to their arrival at the scene of the emergency call be an R.T.C. Fire or Heart attack. Who wants to be wants die in the back of ambulance from a heart attack or other serious condition because the crew have to keep slowing down because of the platforms /speed ramps/islands/and bus stops.
    This whole idea is a complete waste of money and will not benefit any one.The cyclists will still ride on the pavements and endanger pedestians anyway.

    1. Clare Rogers Post author

      Hi David. All the emergency services are being consulted for this route. For the A105 (Green Lanes) which adopts a very similar design, there were no objections from ambulance, fire services or police. The police have apparently welcomed the scheme as it will mean fewer casualties among cyclists. (Elsewhere the presence of cycle lanes and fewer parked cars along main roads have been shown to reduce accidents among pedestrians too.) Let’s wait and see what the emergency services say themselves about the Hertford Road.

  4. Claire O' D

    I don’t live in this area, but visit the area for work and to use the sports centre. I think it would be great to see improvements to the roads and may even tempt me to cycle

    1. Lucia Silva-Clark

      I am delighted to see things are going to change in Enfield. I am a teacher and everyday I cycle to work using Southbury Road – a horrendous road for cyclists and also for pedestrians because frequently cyclists seek protected spaces on the paviment. In peak times the road is always packed of cars and buses, I see many of pupils from local schools risking their lives in a chaotic traffic.
      I am glad to see cycle lanes are going to transform not only Southbury but whole Enfield bringing more cyclists and making Enfield more safer and human.

  5. David H

    I do not live in the area but regularly do some work in the area and cycle in the area. I believe that my opinion should be heard as an Enfield resident.
    I am convinced that in a couple of years time when the scheme has been built and had time to bed in that all of vast majority of concerns will turn out to be unfounded and people generally will wonder what all the fuss had been about.

  6. Karl G

    I live just off the A1010 and this will be a blessing. The A1010 corridor is dominated by the car. Cars take up a disproportionate part of public space with wide carriageways and parking everywhere and speeding vehicles. Coupled with inactive frontage and poor public realm make this area not meeting its full potential!
    This scheme is seeking to use space more efficiently, freeing up space for more sustainable models of transport like the bike and pedestrian. For people, like myself, who live in the community want to enjoy their local area without the car pollutants or speeding cars. In my experience of other parts of our city the more non-motorised the more pleasant a place. THe retailers will get more footfall, and more business if you make it attractive for non-vehicular movement.

    People who are crying about this are the ones who use the A1010 for their journey to other places – get on your bike or use the A10. These public realm improvements will have a meaningful impact at the local level for local people. All across the world global cities are seeking to introduce new designs to reverse the negative impacts of the car. Bring it on!

Comments are closed.