A new Low

The rush to redesign communities as ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’, and the recent pronouncements by Fishy Rishi against them, illustrates much of what is wrong with policymaking in Britain today. LTNs are residential areas that are re-purposed for residents and non-motorised forms of transport by installing some sort of roadblock at the entrances, huge planters are favoured, and maybe traffic calming. Automatic number-plate recognition cameras for enforcement can also be installed. Many LTNs were introduced from 2020, funded by tens of millions of pounds of government money given to local councils.

Their intended outcomes are laudable: improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution, reduce accidents, encourage walking and cycling and reduce street crime, including muggings and sexual assaults. What's not to like?

Nothing, in some areas; they work like a charm. But too much anecdotal evidence (not just in the Daily Mail) and personal experience demonstrates the law of unintended consequences. In some areas through-traffic, and therefore blight, is simply shunted to other streets, buses are diverted, emergency services are delayed, local businesses suffer, and tradesmen and delivery drivers are penalised, as are the elderly and disabled. Quite a rap sheet.

In 2022 authorities around the country had installed nearly 200 LTNs but about 50 have been scrapped, and the Government has announced that they are stopping funding new schemes.

Where did it go wrong? Where things often go wrong: local policies mandated by national government, exacerbated by the LTNs being designed by council officers or consultants who don’t know the areas intimately like residents do The schemes are supported by elected councillors who like to champion trendy causes, make headlines and leave a ‘legacy’, especially when it’s government not council money being spent. Finally, the consultation processes are inadequate and residents’ views often ignored ... gee, where have I heard that before.

The failed LTNs make the headlines more often than the successful ones because the media loves to peddle bad news, so residents view proposed LTNs in their areas with suspicion if not animosity. Fishy Rishi has ordered a review of LTNs, saying that he is on the side of drivers. It’s unclear whether he can order them to be scrapped or altered, but he’s still interfering in local government decisions. The more interference, the worse things will get and the more money – taxpayers’ money – will be wasted.

In other words, the problem is not with LTNs per se; these have been shown to be effective in some areas. The problem is that central government identified a series of issues they wanted fixing (e.g. rat-running, air and noise pollution) and chose one solution, LTNs, from their one-size-fits-all Pandora’s Box, and funded it. This tempted local councils to make decisions they might not otherwise have made were they reliant on just their own devices. A far better way of going about things would have been to fund solutions for the underlying problems, designed from scratch by local councils with the full involvement of people who live there. Some areas might have identified one or more other solutions such as improved public transport (including electric, not diesel vehicles), park and rides, car-sharing, tree-planting, delivery pick-up locations, weekly markets, etc.

If communities can come together to develop a Neighbourhood Plan for new homes, smaller scale and more focused projects like the above should be – are – well within their capabilities.

What’s needed is less interference from central government, less political opportunism, and less divisive rhetoric: ‘drivers versus pedestrians’ will not solve the problems.