Need help filling in the A1010 (south) consultation?

Here is Enfield Cycling Campaign’s response to the Cycle Enfield (Mini Holland) plans for the south section of the A1010. There’s more time now to have your say as the closing date has been extended to the 20 March. Feel free to use the comments below to guide your response at:

We support this plan for the A1010 overall. It will provide a much safer north-south route for cycling and encourage more people to use their bikes for transport. This route also provides a link from the north of the borough to the transport hub at Edmonton Green and to the shopping centre there. This is very welcome in a part of the borough, where car ownership is relatively low. The redesign of the roundabout by Edmonton Green Station (option 1) is a welcome change and will make that junction much friendlier and safer for cyclists. We greatly prefer this to option 2, the roundabout, which has significant hook risks by motor vehicles leaving the roundabout. The scheme as a whole offers much scope for improving the public realm and will make that corridor through the borough a more attractive place for walkers and shoppers.

The scheme as a whole offers much scope for improving the public realm and will make that corridor through the borough a more attractive place for walkers and shoppers

However some general points are:
– Ensure that cycle lanes are not too narrow, preferably 2 metres minimum.
– Keep cycle lanes and pavements consistent as they cross side roads, both in height and surface material.
– Provide bus stop bypasses as opposed to boarders where space allows, with the cycle path continuing in a straight line.
– Separate cycles from motor traffic in time and/or space at signalised junctions, e.g. with simultaneous greens, or separating left-turning from ahead traffic.
– Cycle gates do not give sufficient protection to less confident bike riders and, as they cause a delay, are likely to be ignored by confident cyclists.

Page 1: Fairfield Road to Park Avenue
We partially support the changes here.
• Ideally we would like a wider cycle path. 1.8m is tight for overtaking and at least 2m would be better.
• The junction with Park Avenue has significant left hook danger for cyclists travelling north and needs safety treatment; the radius turning left into it travelling north needs to be tightened and a raised table will help to slow traffic. It needs to be made clear that motor vehicles exiting Park Avenue need to give way to bicycles.
• It is important that the cycle path surface remains consistent across junctions, bus stops and any other interruptions.

Page 2: Park Road to Shrubbery Road (south)
We partially support these proposals.
• The greenway link needs more thought. It should be signalised to ensure safety for cyclists. It is also not clear exactly how cyclists should negotiate it when following the east-west greenway. To access the crossing from the greenway when travelling east entails cycling against the flow of motion on the cycle path. These section of the path need to be wide enough for two-way cycle traffic.
• The cycle tracks on the west side are too narrow; 1.5m in some places despite the main carriageway having sufficient width. This seems to be caused by retaining the parking bays on the west side of the road. Could these be removed to allow for a sufficiently wide cycle path? (See also notes on cycle path width on Page 1)
• Having a bus lane next to the cycle track without a buffer, in this section, not only feels uncomfortable but is not safe in the event of a fall. This is because buses are pretty close to the kerb.

Page 3: Shrubbery Road to Smythe Close
We partially support these proposals.
• There are hook risks for cyclists at Smythe Close. The signal timings need to ensure that cyclists are separated motor traffic in time.
• The crossing south of Smythe Close needs to allow for cyclists travelling north to continue when the lights are red for other traffic, giving any pedestrians priority.
• There appears to be room for a bus stop bypass at the bus stops in this section.

Page 4 (Option 1): Edmonton Green Station/Roundabout
We partially support these proposals. We welcome the removal of the roundabout and prefer this to Option 2.

While we support the overall intention of the plans here, we think the junction could be simplified by continuing the two-way cycle path south as far as Smythe Close. This would allow access to Edmonton Green station and, with careful design, to the bus station and the shopping centre. It would also remove the need for the section of cycle path in the centre of the carriageway between Balham Road and the Junction with Church Street. Cycling between two busy lanes of motor traffic would not encourage cycling for all ages and abilities.
We think the junction with Church Street needs more thought to maintain safety for walkers, and for people cycling from Church Street onto the A1010. Continuing the two-way cycle lane as suggested above would allow space to redesign this junction and separate cycles from motor traffic in space and/or time.

Cycling between two busy lanes of motor traffic would not encourage cycling for all ages and abilities

Page 4 (Option 2): Edmonton Green Station/Roundabout
We do not support this proposal for the roundabout.
This Dutch design roundabout gives too many hook risks for cyclists using it, especially given how busy it is. Similar design has led to red light jumping by motorists in Wandsworth. Such a design has been shown not to work with large traffic flows.

Page 5: Bus Station Access to Rosemary Avenue
We support these proposals.
While supporting the plans in this section:
• We do have concern over the cycle gates causing excessive wait times for cyclists yet not protecting the less confident
• We are very concerned about hook risks at the junction with Bounces/Croyland Roads.

Page 6: Rosemary Avenue to Houndsfield Road
We support these proposals but:
• We are concerned about poor sight lines near the bus stops leading to drivers nosing out into the cycle lane to see any oncoming traffic.
• The cycle lanes are narrow, 1.8m, despite there being more width on the carriageway especially if some limited parking bays were removed.
• We are concerned that the cycle gates will cause unnecessary delays for bike riders without giving sufficient protection to less confident cyclists.
• There may be room for a bus stop bypass.
• Raised tables at Sutherland, Grosvenor, Rosemary, Denny, Lowden, Henderson, North, Houndsfield and Forest Roads would slow motor traffic and make it safer at these junctions for walkers and cyclists.

Page 7: Houndsfield Road to St Alphege Road
We support the main proposals for this section.
• The junction of Cleveland Road and St Joseph’s Road needs to be signalised and there needs to be some waiting space for cyclists following the greenway.
• Raised tables at Bridlington, King Edwards, Elizabeth, Tramway, Bedford and St Alphege Roads would improve safety.
• The cycle lanes are also narrow in this section.
• There is space for bus stop bypasses along this section.

Page 8: St Alphege Road to Southfield Road
We support the main proposals for this section.
Could the junction with Galliards and Nightingale Roads have a simultaneous green signal to facilitate crossing for walkers and cyclists or move the cycle stop line further north for northbound cyclists?

Page 9: Southfield Road to Lincoln Road
We support the main proposals for this section.
• We are concerned about the entrance to the Asda car park. There needs to be a tightening of the radius on the corner and/or a raised table to slow motor traffic and reduce hook risks for walkers and cyclists.
• The bus stop near Clarence Road could be moved out to allow space for a bus stop bypass.