The revised Cycle Enfield plans for Green Lanes – our response

Before Thursday’s exhibition of the final A105 Cycle Enfield plans, you might be interested to read this!

The Enfield Cycling Campaign committee met to discuss the revised A105 / Green Lanes drawings last month. Below is a record of our views. On the whole we were pleased with the changes, many of which have taken our concerns into account, and improved the route for cycling; a few concerns remain however. 

We compared the original plans: http://cycleenfield.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/B240G001-UD-41-A105-Consultation-Drawings_Rev-03.pdf with the revised drawings – however these are not currently available online until the exhibition is over, so the page numbering won’t mean much to you!

 

Comments on recurring features throughout the route

  • We welcome the 0.5m buffers added to most bus stop boarders, while noting that the space is taken from the cycle lane rather than the carriageway – many cycle lanes passing bus stops are narrowed to 1.5m. If unavoidable due to the width of the carriageway, this is acceptable for short stretches. For longer stretches we would prefer a minimum of 1.8.
  • A slight concern about the raised section of cycle lane at bus stop boarder: this will slow/impede cyclists, even when a bus is not at the stop. A zebra crossing might be preferable instead to give clear priority to pedestrians while not slowing cyclists when not in use.
  • If the green dashes represent segregation, i.e. orcas, then we are pleased to see that they continue right up to crossings rather than stopping several metres before and after.

Comments on revised drawings, by page

Page 1

We welcome:

  • 5m buffer added between parking and cycle lane
  • Raised table now encompasses both Village Road and Lincoln Road entrances.

Still a concern / unclear:

  • Looking at the entrance to the cycle lane on London Road into the shared space area, how will conflict with pedestrians be avoided? Is the cycle lane at the same level/material as the footway or is it differentiated in any way? The cycle lane shown turns at a sharp angle, so cyclists may be tempted to cut across space intended for pedestrians.

Page 2

We welcome:

  • Bus stop no longer to be moved from opposite Walnut Grove – better for bus passengers
  • Zebra added at Regency Court – better for pedestrians
  • The revised cycle lane route across Bush Hill and Uvedale Road looks safer and provides better line of sight for cyclists approaching these roads, and clearer priority for cycles thanks to the car ‘give way’ lines set back from Green Lanes.

Concern:

  • Coming from Bush Hill or Uvedale road, how can cyclists safely turn south?

Page 3

We welcome:

  • The safer cycle route across Village Road and Park Avenue
  • Bus boarder changed to a bypass.

Concerns:

  • The cycle lane runs outside of the footway parking
  • No protection for cyclists turning right into Park Avenue. A right turn pocket would be welcome at this junction and others like it (i.e. a place for cyclists to pull over on the left of the lane, not the centre of the carriageway, while they wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic).

Page 4

We welcome:

  • Crossings on all arms of Bush Hill junction converted to toucan crossings to allow safe movement of cycles through junction. This is certainly safer than bikes sharing space and/or time with cars across the junction and we felt it could work in a similar to a ‘simultaneous green’ (except bikes share the crossing with pedestrians).
  • New bus stop added on Village Road (if we understood correctly) and parking removed – we felt this was a good use of space.

Concerns/questions:

  • We didn’t fully understand from the drawings how the movements will work – we were a little confused by the bike lane markings
  • How will conflict with pedestrians be avoided?
  • We would like to see the signal phasing for clarity
  • We still have concerns about the shared space on the slip road, depending on traffic volume.

Page 5

We welcome:

  • Cycle lanes now on inside of parking

Concern:

  • The lack of a buffer zone alongside the parking, which may risk cyclists being ‘doored’.

Page 6

We welcome:

  • Cycle lane now on inside of parking near Vicars Moor Lane
  • Re-routed cycle lane across Vicars Moor Lane looks safer.
  • Bus stand relocated.

Concerns:

  • Green Dragon Lane junction is very busy and we felt the proposals don’t fully address this. It is hard for cylists (and drivers) to turn into and out of GDL.
  • Should this junction be signalised?
  • We felt that the cycle link between the quietway to and the A105 could be improved – as the designs stand it’s not clear how to do this going northbound on the A105, or southbound from the quietway (using the cycle crossing involves an awkward turn for bikes exiting the quietway).
  • Perhaps a second branch of the quietway is needed north of the existing branch, so that when travelling northwards on the A105 there would be a smoother link from the cycle path to the Bush Hill quietway.  This can be easily achieved by running a “spur” off the A105 cycle path (immediately north of GDL)  directly on to Bush Hill across a “dead area” that is currently pedestrianised and occupied by a couple of small flower beds.
  • The angle at the Firs Lane triangle is not a good one for cycles exiting that side road, as it is not perpendicular to the main road, making cyclists less visible to drivers.

Page 7

We welcome:

  • The redesign of the cycle lane approaching Ford Grove, with the new zebra crossing
  • The relocated bus stand.

Concern/question:

  • We don’t understand the signalling at the Ford Grove junction
  • How are cycles protected as they cross the junction north-south from right-turning vehicles?

Page 8

We welcome:

  • Bus stops relocated to accommodate bus stop boarder buffer
  • Access road to Sainsbury’s – cyclists run in separate stage to traffic, which is far preferable to a cycle gate.

Concerns/questions:

  • The separate stage appears to be on only one side – if so could it be done on the other side too?
  • How are cycles protected turning right out of Sainsbury’s?
  • How about cycle access at the pedestrian entrance, changing the proposed central zebra crossing to allow cycles to cross as well? (Even better if Sainsbury’s can provide cycle parking at that entrance.)

Page 9

We welcome:

  • Cycle lanes now running inside parking.

Page 10

We welcome:

  • Bus stand removed.

Page 11

Questions/concerns:

Fox Lane junction:

  • Error on plans? Says this junction will be signalised but road markings suggest non-signalised
  • It looks difficult for cyclists to turn right coming from Fox Lane, or turn right into Fox Lane
  • The wide radius at Fox Lane looks dangerous – left hook risk for cycles going ahead northbound past junction
  • Ideally, we would like to see Fox Lane filtered to allow pedestrians and bikes only turning in and out of this road onto the A105, and to create a quietway for bikes between Palmers Green and Southgate.

Devonshire Road junction:

  • Devonshire Road is currently used heavily as a rat run. Something to calm / restrict traffic here could provide a quietway for children walking/cycling to and from Hazelwood School.

Hazelwood Lane:

  • We preferred this as entrance-only, so we are disappointed to see it returned to two-way [since this report was written, a pedestrian crossing Green Lanes was hit by a car as it exited Hazelwood Lane and turned north]
  • This road has a large primary school on it (Hazelwood School) but acts as a rat run for traffic to the North Circular, and a significant proportion of local parents drive their children short distances to the school. Something to calm / restrict traffic here would make active travel to school for children more convenient and safer.

Page 12

We welcome:

  • The changes at Aldermans Hill / the Triangle
  • The ‘hold the left’ solution is far preferable to a cycle gate turning into Aldermans Hill
  • Allowing cycles on the pedestrian crossings seems a safer option, especially for cycles turning right into Aldermans Hill.

Concerns/questions:

  • How will conflict between bikes and pedestrians be avoided on the Triangle crossings? Can pedestrians & cycles be kept on separate halves of the crossings?
  • No improvement to Oakthorpe Road junction, which we flagged as having a low CLOS score.

Pages 13 & 14

Concerns:

  • We preferred the New River Path option for the southern end of the route
  • We feel that the scheme effectively peters out at Palmerston Crescent
  • Palmerston Crescent is not ideal for cycling and the designs do not appear to offer any treatment to make it safer
  • (It also feeds cyclists onto Palmerston Road on the other side of the A406, which is a terrifying road to cycle on even for experienced commuters.)
  • We would prefer the cycle lanes to continue along the A105, in the hope that future improvments would modify the A105/A406 junction for safer cycling.

Bike-train connections

Following the Cycling Towards a Better Enfield conference, we would like to see better links created for cycling between the stations in Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill and the A105 cycle lanes, perhaps in the form of extending the segregated lanes to station entrances. (We realise that the narrow road bridge on Aldermans Hill presents a challenge, but this is still an important issue to address.)

Also, significantly increased numbers of bike parking places are needed at each station to encourage more cycle-train commuting. A visible rise in numbers of people cycling to and from the station instead of driving would greatly boost the credibility of the whole scheme.

Security for bikes is another issue. Currently Palmers Green station has very few bike parking places, and because the provision that does exist is hidden at the end of the car park, bike owners tend to lock their bikes to the railings on the pavement instead where a higher footfall discourages thieves. This space is limited and clutters the pavement for pedestrians.

 

2 thoughts on “The revised Cycle Enfield plans for Green Lanes – our response

  1. Androulla Regas

    In view of the excessive cost and all the related problems arising, can we please know how many cyclists are using Green lanes now? I personally haven’t seen any cyclists at all!!! Has someone counted the cyclists to give us this information please? If the council has extra money to spend there are other ways to spend our money wisely.

    Reply
    1. Enfieldcc

      Hi Androulla. I cycle on Green Lanes about once a week, and each time I see 3 or 4 others doing the same. I don’t recommend it though! Numbers of cyclists are low precisely because it doesn’t feel safe to mingle with traffic on a bike on a fairly fast-moving main road.

      The Cycle Enfield scheme exists not to make life easier for the tiny minority who already cycle. It’s to make cycling safe and convenient for everyone else – from ages 8 to 80, regardless of confidence and ability. If it succeeds in getting people out of their cars and travelling to school and work in a way that’s healthy, active and frees up space on the road, then it’s a very good use of money. And I think there’s a good chance that it will.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *