Evidence that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are making traffic worse

Campaigners in Moseley in south Birmingham, and in Islington, north London, claim that new traffic schemes designed to create safer and more environmentally-friendly environments for walkers and cyclists have done the opposite, increasing traffic congestion and risking the safety of non-motorists.

“The traffic has exploded, so that what was a quiet street before this measure has now been wrecked by all the traffic now being pushed onto one road”, says Sheila Blain, a schoolteacher living on Woodfield Road in Moseley, one of Birmingham City Council’s experimental LTNs set up in August. Sandwiched between two main roads, she says the streets in her neighbourhood are often used as “rat-runs” for through traffic.

Taking advantage of the government’s £250m emergency funding pot announced in May, the Council drafted plans to end the problem. Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders bypass the usual consultation requirements and were used in this instance – as in other cities – to implement new traffic layouts over the summer.

However, the results have received a mixed response. Of nearly 3,000 comments made on the Council’s feedback page for the changes in King’s Heath the majority are negative. “Very nice for people living on School Road but awful for residents of surrounding roads such as Valentine, Springfield and Woodfield Road”, said one comment. The LTN has pushed traffic onto other streets, increased queues and increased travel times and pollution”, wrote another.

Sheila Blain says her street has convened via WhatsApp to conduct their own traffic monitoring and coordinate a response to the council following the changes. Blain says she has received no reply to her emails from either her local councillors, or Joe Green, the Council’s Travel Demand Manager.

When contacted by Reaction, Labour councillors Kerry Jenkins and Martin Straker Welds did respond. “Unfortunately the delay in funding meant inevitable delays in the LTN plans and delivery for Moseley”, they wrote. “Clearly, this is frustrating for us all, but for those residents living in roads who are now experiencing additional pressures as a result of the modal filters, it is exceptionally difficult.”

Joe Green, who is also a member of the pro-LTN Sustrans charity, confirmed that limited funding was partly to blame in Moseley and in other areas where only partial bollards have been put in place, funnelling through traffic onto fewer roads. He wrote that the Council “have been clear that these were initial early measures to demonstrate how this could work across the wider area, ahead of further measures developed in partnership through engagement with a wide range of local residents and other stakeholders” and that “through the next phase of funding, there will be an area-wide approach taken to identify and deliver measures which aim to reduce traffic in residential streets across this whole area”, and added that there would be “opportunities for engagement” on the process early next year.

How far is this incident reflective of the schemes that have sprung up this summer across the country? According to Birmingham City Council research, most people in the area supported Moseley’s inclusion in the project. This support for traffic reduction schemes is replicated across the country, according to the government. 

But while bitter partisanship has played its part in the subsequent media debate, problems of practice rather than theory seem to be the dominant concern among those protesting the measures.

In Islington, north London, protests are also continuing against the addition of a cycleway on Liverpool Road. It has been the focus of continued protests and a judicial review effort over the past four months. Now, campaigners are petitioning a formal objection to the Council and Emily Thornberry, their local MP, following an independent consultation into the safety of the scheme for those it is designed to protect.

“I’m a cyclist, a pedestrian, a motorist and a resident, and in all four of those functions this layout is worse”, says Erik Pagano, a businessman who has led the action against the Council. “It’s a subtle point that is often missed in this furore of objection… [but] you need multiple functions in order to make streets safer. We comment on planning applications in order that these problems are designed out. These streets are not friendlier for the people they’re supposed to be safe for.”

The safety consultation, conducted by PSP Consulting, repeats concerns raised by the original audit of the cycleway by the Council’s own contractor, Project Centre. These included concerns about the removal of pedestrian refuges – “islands” – for road crossings and narrow cycle lanes, which the report says threatens the safety of non-motorists. “This is no longer an experiment in a road traffic layout – they’re now experimenting with people’s safety”, says Pagano.

With previous efforts to challenge the procedure failing to gain traction, Pagano is hoping that local politicians will listen now that safety, rather than procedure, is the issue. Emily Thornberry MP has been contacted directly on the details of the PSP report, and told Reaction: “I am aware that Mr Pagano and other constituents have safety concerns about the scheme, particularly in relation to the removal of the pedestrian refuge islands”, stating that she has “contacted [Councillor] Rowena Champion to raise these points.”

Following a request for comment, the Council come back only with a stock reply: “In implementing this cycle route, and other people-friendly streets schemes, the council follows all statutory requirements and procedures, including on consultation, design standards and safety.”

The government’s announcement in May that £250m would be offered for “emergency” traffic schemes designed to permit social distancing and reduce pressure on the transport system has sent a mixed signal to councils. Many have interpreted the measures as part of their long-term environmental goals. In November, the government stressed that councils must “work with their communities” in implementing changes, but also clarified that the May funding was only the first stage in a £2bn “new era” package announced by Boris Johnson to reform public road use in the coming years. Many of the measures put in place over the summer are likely to be expanded with the next tranche of funding.

The conflict over low traffic neighbourhoods has often descended into moral mudslinging, with those against considered callous – even violent – and those in favour accused of green fanaticism. But beneath the culture war lie more fundamental problems about policy-making and how those policies are communicated to local government and to citizens. 

On the LTN issue, many residents feel ignored by their local representatives; while the policy itself, drafted hastily in the early months of the pandemic, has not been adequately scoped and explained by the government. The results so far have not been encouraging for local democracy.

17/12/20, 18:05: This article was updated to include comment from Emily Thornberry MP.