'LTNs: A Positive or a Poisoned Chalice?' - Adam Gordon-Boyle

'LTNs: A Positive or a Poisoned Chalice?' - Adam Gordon-Boyle

An unexpected example of our increasingly bitter and hostile public discourse is the furore surrounding local government measures to discourage driving on residential roads. Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have prompted cries of hallelujah from some, whereas an increasingly vocal minority has launched a crusade against the small planters and bollards dotted around the country.

But how much do residents really care? Apparently quite a bit. Certainly as the outspoken former Hackney councillor Jon Burke can attest to. After shepherding in LTNs in the East London borough, he received vile death threats in September 2020. There were no punches pulled in a tweeted rebuttal as he claimed that “anti-LTN ‘campaigners’ were responsible for the creation of an atmosphere in which public property is destroyed and councillors receive death threats for doing the job they were democratically elected to do.” [2]

This is by no means an isolated incident. There are numerous examples of road barriers being vandalised, damaged, or even burnt to the ground. The latter occurred in Oxford in July this year. Two bollards were melted down in the Iffley Fields ward by hooded thugs in the middle of the night. Some individuals are so angry, so deluded, that they resort toarson on a residential road. [3]

A common trend in those opposed to LTN schemes is a dismissal of facts and logic in favour of deeply held beliefs. Sound familiar? LTNs are get another case in modern politics where the ability to have a reasoned debate has been replaced by a nonsensical culture war; the influence of far-right American politics continues to grow in Britain.

So what are the facts about LTNs? It is unarguable that excessive motor traffic plagues our ever-expanding urban areas. Vehicles in Britain were directly responsible for the deaths of 1752 people in 2019 [4] , whereas air pollution may contribute to 40,000 more fatalities annually. [5] Labelled a public health emergency by the WHO, air pollution ‘made a material contribution’ in the high-profile case of Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old from Lewisham, who died following an asthma attack in 2013. [6] A tragedy that will become more common if no action is taken.

LTNs, whilst imperfect, are a noble and a significant move in the right direction. Growth of traffic on London’s quiet C roads has doubled in the decade up to 2019. That this was not a continuation of an existing trend has led some experts to blame everything from satnavs to online deliveries, the latter a distinct characteristic of pandemic Britain. A simpler explanation is a swelling in vehicle numbers by ten million in the last decade. [7] Either way, LTNs work by blocking shortcuts through residential roads – so called ‘rat running,’ which means traffic stays where intended, on main roads.

The evidence on LTN’s effectiveness, whilst limited, is clear. After three years of the Waltham Forest LTN scheme, residents reported walking for 115 minutes more a week compared to those in nearby areas. [8] This method has also convinced those in the public health community; Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity provided £250,000 worth of funding to Southwark council for temporary LTNs. [9] Other than health, LTNs can increase footfall for local businesses and may even significantly reduce street crime.

In face of all kinds of evidence, the naysayers on LTNs are armed with flimsy claims that fall apart upon closer inspection. Perhaps most common is the fiction that overall traffic is not reduced but merely pushed onto surrounding, supposedly less affluent roads, leaving them more congested. ‘When you cut a vein the blood has nowhere to go,’ as I was told once on the doorstep. An impressive case of a grossly oversimplified metaphor used to make a point that is wrong. Yet any perception of LTNs as a distinctly middle-class endeavour could still make them a tricky issue for Labour. The right needs no provocation to push the line that our party is only for ‘lefty Islington lawyers.’ The truth is, however, that people in deprived areas [10] of London are 2.5 times more likely to live in LTNs than those in less deprived areas with no evidence of a social equity problem. [11]

Another frequently repeated line to discredit LTNs is that they were undemocratically imposed on residents. Whilst it is true their implementation was hasty, there is good reason for this. Boris Johnson heralded in the ‘cycling and walking revolution’ [12] with a £2 billion package for local government in May 2020. As the UK made tentative steps out of the first lockdown, a car-led recovery would have been a disaster. Consultations have and continue to take place with many instances of LTNs being changed or scrapped altogether. Moreover, polling consistently points towards majority support with the number of those opposed only shrinking over time; this stood at 44% in Waltham Forest prior to introduction with only 1.7% currently against. [13] It does seem as if an increasingly rattled minority is hell bent on stoking division when the public is largely on side.

LTNs may not only be the right thing to do policy-wise, but also electorally. The loud voices of disdain over the schemes make it tempting to change course, or, as Oxford Labour seemed to do in the recent city council elections, defer responsibility and equivocate on your stance. Perhaps the most striking thing to come out of May’s local elections was the surge in support for the Green Party as they gained three seats in Oxford. I would argue our failure to properly support LTNs contributed.

Candidates who framed themselves largely in opposition to this single issue widely faltered. Notably, the defection of Sadiea Mustafa-Awan to stand as an independent failed to win a seat in Littlemore. [14]

Whilst it is tempting in the face of so much righteous assertion from the opposition, we cannot say LTNs are perfect. Poorly designed schemes that lack accompanying transport development may not work as intended. Furthermore, council engagement with residents over design of neighbourhoods must be sincere and non-judgmental. Not everyone opposed to LTNs is a far-right arsonist. Whilst public opinion is currently on our side, this must not be taken for granted by simply dismissing criticism. The facts are there; they just need to be robustly pressed to prevent the posttruth narratives from bedding in. In the fight against air pollution and the climate crisis, there is no room for backward steps. But it is clear, LTNs are a step forward.

[Adam Gordon-Boyle is a first year Medic at Worcester College.]