Low Traffic Neighborhoods (LTNs) have been a topic of debate in the UK, with critics arguing that they generate more problems than they solve. LTNs were created as part of a government-funded scheme to provide safer and cleaner traffic-free spaces across the country. However, some argue that they push congestion elsewhere and negatively impact local traffic.

Supporters of LTNs argue that they have drastically improved the quality of life in residential areas, with urban streets no longer being used as congestion-escaping rat runs. They believe that LTNs promote more active lifestyles, such as walking and cycling, and create safer spaces for pedestrians.

One of the main criticisms of LTNs is that they are seen as a revenue-raising tool due to the use of numberplate-recognition cameras that trigger fines for non-local traffic. In 2021, moving traffic offences in London, the city with the highest number of LTNs, increased by 55.4% compared to the previous year. This rise was largely attributed to the introduction of LTNs. Critics argue that this suggests LTNs are being used as a way to generate revenue rather than focusing on their intended purpose.

LTNs are not limited to London; other cities such as Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield have also implemented these traffic-free spaces. The government’s active travel fund has allocated significant funding for councils to create more LTNs, leading to their increased adoption across the country.

Another point of contention is the accuracy of data used to justify the creation of LTNs. The Department for Transport (DfT) admitted that its data, which showed a significant rise in traffic on residential streets in London between 2009 and 2019, was incorrect. After a review, no increase in traffic was recorded. This revelation has fueled skepticism among critics about the effectiveness of LTNs.

Studies on the effectiveness of LTNs have produced conflicting results. One study commissioned by the DfT found that within 10 inner-London LTNs, the number of miles driven actually increased by 41 million compared to the previous year. In contrast, two London boroughs without LTNs saw an increase of only 29 million miles. Critics argue that these findings suggest that LTNs are displacing vehicles onto streets not covered by them.

However, a report by Imperial College London and a survey by the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy (ATA) found that traffic levels within LTNs had decreased significantly. The ATA study showed that average traffic levels within LTNs had declined by 46.9%, while half of boundary roads experienced a rise in traffic. The overall conclusion was that LTNs contribute to traffic reduction goals and have substantial benefits within their boundaries.

Despite the mixed results and opposition from some motorists and residents, many councils are committed to keeping and even expanding their LTNs. However, some councils have scrapped their LTNs due to fierce opposition from local businesses and residents.

The recent review ordered by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak into the use of LTNs reflects the ongoing debate surrounding these traffic-free spaces. Sunak’s statement that he is now “on the side of the drivers” suggests a shift in policy and a focus on supporting car usage. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the review will be and whether any changes will be made to existing LTNs.

In conclusion, LTNs have been implemented across the UK as part of a government-funded scheme to create safer and cleaner traffic-free spaces. While supporters argue that they have improved residential quality of life and promote active lifestyles, critics claim that they push congestion elsewhere and are used as revenue-raising tools. Studies on the effectiveness of LTNs have produced conflicting results, with some suggesting that they displace traffic onto other streets. The ongoing debate and the recent review ordered by the Prime Minister highlight the need for further examination of LTNs and their impact on traffic and communities.