Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs): An Overview of Research and Perspectives
While there have been several discussions about Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), few have addressed important details regarding their implementation, including the number established, those discontinued, and the focus of existing studies.
In this post, I’ll provide a summary of key facts and differing viewpoints on LTNs, striving to separate verified information from opinions.
Remember, while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, facts remain constant. An informed perspective requires access to comprehensive facts.
TL;DR:
Currently, there is no research that identifies the specific factors contributing to the success or failure of LTNs, nor guidelines on best practices or pitfalls. I personally believe LTNs can be effective if they restrict secondary roads, but not if they block main routes (like in Streatham, as discussed below). Additionally, they must be paired with enhanced public transportation options (e.g., improving bus services or adding dedicated bus lanes).
FACT: A total of 96 LTNs were introduced in London during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Source: Aldred’s study from January 2023, page 7: View Study
FACT: Aldred’s analysis is among the most thorough studies of London’s LTNs, examining only 46 out of the 96 implemented—roughly half of the total.
OPINIONS:
– Critics of LTNs argue that excluding data from scrapped schemes introduces selection bias, as most of those were likely discontinued due to their ineffectiveness, including unpopular plans in Wandsworth and Ealing.
– Supporters contend that valid analysis is only possible with existing data and that there’s no intention of bad faith.
FACT: Aldred’s study indicates that traffic volume increased in 54% of central London LTNs, 50% of inner London LTNs, and 62% of outer London LTNs.
Source: same study, table 9, page 54
OPINIONS:
– Detractors argue that these findings suggest LTNs are failing, as exempting scrapped schemes skews the results. They emphasize that the goal was a significant reduction in traffic, which did not occur. Including discontinued LTNs would likely show a more significant rise in traffic on boundary roads.
– Supporters counter that it’s optimistic that only about half of the boundary roads saw traffic increases.
FACT: There is currently no existing research analyzing the determinants of LTN success or failure.
OPINIONS:
– Critics suggest this absence points to a lack of credibility among LTN advocates, who may mistakenly believe LTNs can be universally effective.
– Supporters argue that the likelihood of an LTN’s success hinges on the public’s willingness to relinquish their cars.
FACT: Current studies utilize traffic counters recommended for free-flowing traffic rather than slow-moving traffic.
OPINIONS:
– Opponents maintain that these devices are inappropriate for assessing LTNs accurately, potentially underrepresenting actual traffic increases.
– Proponents assert that the counters still provide valid data, regardless of their original intended use.
FACT: The Streatham LTN in the London Borough of Lambeth was dissolved due to substantial delays and cancellations affecting bus services.
Source: BBC Article
OPINIONS:
– Advocates
Thank you for your thorough summary of the current discussions surrounding Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). It’s clear that this topic elicits strong opinions on both sides, and your structured approach to separating facts from opinions highlights the complexity of the issue.
Regarding the facts, it’s evident that there’s still much to understand about the long-term impacts of LTNs. The data suggesting that traffic increased in a significant number of central, inner, and outer London LTNs raises valid concerns that warrant further investigation. It is indeed troubling that there seems to be a lack of comprehensive studies evaluating what factors contribute to the success or failure of LTNs, an issue that must be addressed if these initiatives are to be successful in the future.
On the opinions front, both sides bring forth compelling arguments. Those in favor of LTNs emphasize the necessity of such measures in reducing vehicular traffic and improving air quality, while opponents rightly point out the potential drawbacks, especially when distributor roads are affected. Your mention of the Streatham LTN is a prime example of how the intricacies of road design and traffic flow can significantly influence outcomes.
Moreover, the debate over traffic counting methods emphasizes the need for appropriate tools that reflect actual conditions, ensuring we’re making informed decisions based on reliable data. If traffic counters are misrepresenting the situation, that could lead to misguided policy decisions.
The introduction of new transport options alongside LTNs appears crucial for their acceptance and effectiveness. Improved public transport services could mitigate some of the traffic concerns raised by opponents, providing residents with viable alternatives to car usage.
Ultimately, ongoing dialogues, more inclusive studies that consider scrapped LTNs, and a willingness to adapt strategies based on evidence are crucial for finding a balanced approach. It’s essential for city planners, stakeholders, and residents to work together to develop a transportation framework that meets the needs of all community members while promoting safety and sustainability.
I look forward to seeing how this conversation continues to evolve and what new studies emerge to shed light on the effectiveness of LTNs.