Save Enfield From Enfield Council
because it is where we live, work and shop and Enfield Council is ignoring us! saveourenfield@gmail.com

Welcome

In 2013 Enfield Council won the cycle race!

A reason to celebrate? NO!

The London Borough of Enfield (LBE) was one of three outer London boroughs to receive Mini Holland funding as part of Boris Johnson’s Vision For Cycling, to get Enfield cycling. Enfield was then and almost certainly still is, one of the London boroughs with lowest rates of participation in cycling.

So surely getting Enfield cycling is a good idea?

Of course – but it is how Enfield Council and Transport for London (TfL) propose to do it is the cause for concern.

Under the current proposals Enfield Council will put segregated cycle lanes along both sides of the A105 (Green Lanes) from Enfield Town to Palmers Green and build segregated cycle lanes along Southbury Road and the A1010 (Hertford Road). They are some of the busiest roads in the borough, running through residential areas and heavily used shopping parades – our community arteries, joining up the south and east of the borough with Enfield Town. We are all for using the TfL money to create safe cycle tracks – but in a way that does not cause these problems. And there is good reason to say these plans are not the best option for cyclists. The GLA’s own cycle lane design guidance says that

“Routes should make more use of secondary roads, where they are sufficiently direct, to separate cyclists from volume traffic”.

Across the borough residents and businesses have objected, voting against the proposals in the public consultations, in the press and social media, But Enfield Council is ignoring advice FROM THEIR OWN EXPERTS that the cycle lane scheme is going to cause: 

MORE CONGESTION, DAMAGE OUR LOCAL ECONOMY AND WORSEN AIR QUALITY.

None of the so-called economic risk assessments have concluded that the cycle lanes will regenerate our local high streets – indeed the opposite is more likely, that they will put hundreds of businesses and jobs at risk. 

The time has come to

SAVE OUR ENFIELD FROM ENFIELD COUNCIL 

Enfield Mini Holland is in a mess and something must be done about it.

Where some of the online public consultations have voted in favour of the scheme (by the slightest of margins) it is because they have been ‘gamed’ – the cycling lobby has piled in to skew the result. The online consultation system used can best be described as ‘leaky’ – easy to falsify, so a very unreliable way of gauging the genuine support for the scheme. Worse, even where it is clear that a majority of residents and business owners in the borough are against the scheme, if votes from people outside the borough led to an overall vote in favour, this figure was accepted. Would Manchester think it acceptable for Enfield residents to vote on a transport scheme for Manchester? No! So why does TfL insist their schemes are open to the whole world? Because that’s the only way they can claim support for the unpopular schemes they want to inflict on local people.

Enfield Council has completely ignored residents, businesses, churches, residents groups, bus companies, emergency services, charities, disability and other community groups – the people who care about their local area.

Here is the stock answer from Cllr Daniel Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment who is heading up the Enfield cycle lane scheme:

“We want to enhance this environment for everyone, however they choose to travel. With this investment we can help to create safe and pleasant places to live, shop and do business”.

The Council’s claim that the scheme will benefit everyone because it is only the absence of cycle lanes that is preventing them from cycling is vacuous at best and cynical and offensive at worst.

 

Here is a Cycle Enfield website, where all the online consultations are housed, as well as the maps, videos and other documents relating to the construction of the cycle lane network.

You will find that the Cycle Enfield website puts a very positive spin on all the proposals, neglects to mention any negative implications and ignores the true impact on residents, businesses, churches and community groups.

 

So what happens when you devote nearly a third of the road for the exclusive use of cyclists along these roads 24/7?

  • More congestion, as all vehicles would be forced into one lane, so that every time a bus stops all other vehicles behind would have to stop; every time a vehicle stops to turn right all the vehicles behind would have to stop.
  • Loss of parking for hundreds of local residents who live along the routes, as well as loss of access to vital parking and delivery bays for local businesses. No more parking on yellow lines after 6.30 to pick up a take away or visit a restaurant.
  • There will be some parking but it will be located outside of the cycle lanes, so that drivers and passengers will have to get out of the car in close proximity to traffic on one side and the cycle lane on the nearside. You can see from videos on this website that this arrangement is resulting in an alarming number of accidents in other parts of the country.
  • Crossing points for pedestrians have to be moved from the most convenient places, encouraging people to take risks crossing the road.
  • Bus lanes are being removed and buses will have to stop in the middle of the road.
  • People will have to cross the cycle lanes to get on and off a bus. Alarm bells should be ringing – yes the proposed bus boarders and floating bus stops are dangerous and TfL have been asked to stop using these bus stops.

16.8b6

Source: Cycle Enfield

  • Disabled badge holders are banned from parking along the route. Congratulations Enfield – you could become the first outer London borough to withdraw parking rights for disabled people, sacrificing the needs of the elderly and less able for the sake of a few cyclists.

We will face all these problems because our roads are just too narrow for segregated cycle lanes!

What do you do when thousands of local people object to your proposals?

You fudge, you lie, you omit to tell them crucial facts and push on regardless. This is what Enfield Council is doing! Is it democratic?

Yet patronisingly tell us that they are creating a ‘Better Enfield For Everyone’

Better Enfield

 

Is this really a Better Enfield for EVERYONE – when the council is ignoring the needs of the majority of its residents, for a cycle scheme scheme which is costing over £40m and is unlikely to achieve its objectives?

AND

When it has selected some of the busiest roads for the cycle lane network?

Surely Enfield Council should be supporting the small independent businesses who rely on local customers?

 

Enfield Council’s attitude seems to be ‘we have to have segregated cycle lanes along our main roads and residents will have to put up with the risks!

This Save OUR Enfield From Enfield Council campaign has been set up to help the people of Enfield to understand what is being proposed by Enfield Council, as there is only limited, biased information about the cycle lane proposals on the official Cycle Enfield website cycleenfield.co.uk

Across the borough there are residents and business owners (large & small) who are concerned that about the impact the proposed cycle lanes will have a negative impact on the borough. ; Enfield is ignoring concerns that the scheme will lead to increased congestion on our roads and even threaten the viability of our local high streets; without achieving the objectives of getting more people to swap from car to bicycle for short journeys; or reducing the borough’s obesity rate.

The campaign organisers are NOT anti cycling. We are happy to see cycle lanes introduced – but not in a way that will jeopardise businesses, reduce bus accessibility, increase journey times for residents and make it impossible for taxis, dial-a-ride, delivery vehicles or spaces for residents to park near their homes.

Enfield Council has presented the proposals in a very one-sided way, without a full discussion of the negative aspects of the proposals or even an understanding of their environmental or economic impact. Enfield Council say Cycle Enfield is “about more than cycle lanes”. Yet if you look at the designs you will see that it is ALL about cycle lanes – cyclists are being given priority over all other road users, including pedestrians and bus passengers, as well as people who own or rent properties along the proposed routes.

We will be urging the new Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to take another look at Enfield Mini Holland.

In May 2016, prior to the London Mayoral elections Sadiq Khan said:

“the needs of local residents affected by the cycle schemes must be paramount. It must be a workable scheme that takes into account the needs of disabled users among others.”

In December 2016, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said on LBC:

“Congestion is a serious issue… this is why I have appointed a cycling and walking commissioner and one of the things he is going to be doing is to make sure that we learn the lessons from cycle superhighway. We are making sure we speak to the councils and try and divert cyclists away from main roads onto what I call quiet ways in order to encourage people particularly in outer London to cycle rather than have all our eggs in the Embankment cycle superhighway previous generation basket.… the bad news is that as a consequence of the congestion not only is it leading to worse air quality but people are stopping using certain buses because they can’t rely on getting from A to B, so it is in everyone’s interest to sort out congestion in London”.

Please contact the campaign team if you want to help Save Enfield From Enfield Council!

Please make a donation to the fighting fund 

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/enfieldminihollandmess

18.8b2