Several options have been developed for the Enfield Town scheme. However, these have now been reduced to the two options described above. Four other options have been considered but will not be taken any further. Because the other options would not be funded by TfL, and therefore could not be implemented, they will not form part of the consultation process.
The other options that were considered, and the reasons why they have been rejected, are as follows:
Option 2 – this is similar to Option 1 (which has been shortlisted), and reflects the design that was shown in the original bid. Church Street would be restricted to eastbound buses, and there would be a two-way segregated cycle track along the whole length. Cecil Road would become a two-way street. The difference between this and Option 1 is that eastbound ‘general traffic’ would reach Cecil Road via Church Street and Sarnesfield Road. The main reason for rejecting this option is the potential for delays to eastbound traffic if Palace Exchange car park was to block back.
Option 3 – this is also similar to Options 1 and 2 but all eastbound traffic would be allowed to continue along Church Street (with a compulsory left turn into Silver Street). Cecil Road would be two-way for its whole length. This option was rejected by the GLA because it keeps general traffic on Church Street, and would not be considered a sufficient improvement on the existing arrangement.
Option 4 – this would retain the existing one-way system but with the inclusion of additional cycling facilities. There would be an eastbound cycle lane on Church Street, and cycle lanes in both directions on Cecil Street. This option was not shortlisted as TfL did not consider it to be sufficiently transformational. Westbound cyclists would still have a circuitous route through the town centre, there would be reduced footway widths on Church Street, and motor traffic would continue to dominate the main shopping area. There would also be limited opportunity to make improvements to public space.
Option 5 – this is similar to Option 1 but with London Road closed to motor traffic between Cecil Road and Church Street, and two-way working on Genotin Road. London Road and Church Street would have two-way cycling provision, and Church Street would also allow eastbound bus travel. Cecil Road would be two-way along its entire length. This option was rejected due to its predicted large impact on traffic congestion (traffic would need to drop by more than 50% for it to be workable).
Option 6 – this would have ‘shared space’ along Church Street and London Road, with two way provision for buses and cycles on Church Street, and two way for general traffic on Cecil Road and London Road. Signals would be removed from the junctions of Silver Street and Church Street, and Genotin Road and Southbury Road. This option was rejected because of the predicted impact on traffic congestion – a 40% reduction in traffic would be needed for the layout to work satisfactorily. Other disadvantages are that there would be limited benefit for cyclists at the shared space junctions, increased traffic on Cecil Road, informal crossings at junctions which would be opposed by groups representing visually impaired groups, and loading would need to be relocated to side streets at the western end of Church Street. Enfield Council still had an aspiration to develop a ‘Shared Space’ option and a variation of the option was investigated which looked to retain the ‘Shared Space’ approach on Church Street but with signals retained at the junctions of Silver Street and Church Street, and Genotin Road and Southbury Road, to reduce and traffic congestion, which resulted in Option 6a, which is being consulted on.