Low-traffic neighborhoods promote cycling, reduce car use, and make roads safer, but city councils could do more to make the plans more enjoyable and understandable to the local population, he concluded. more exhaustive study of the concept.
The report from the Central London Center on Interventions, which use planters or other filters to stop motor vehicle traffic on smaller residential streets, also found no evidence that they would disproportionately benefit people. rich.
But the study, which combined traffic data with direct evidence from officials involved in LTN, said that the fact that many were implemented on probation during confinement meant that there was sometimes a lack of consultations as well as teething problems. which could have been avoided.
A 2020 demonstration against the imposition of a low-traffic neighborhood in Lewisham, south-east London. Photography: John Gaffen / Alamy
He recommends that councils try to better reach communities before future projects and seek to depoliticize the issue, with an idea that is to use a term other than LTN, one not associated with the wave of schemes introduced in 2020, such as “healthy “. neighborhoods ”or“ quiet neighborhoods ”.
The report only covers London, but has lessons for other areas as the capital has seen most of the recent LTNs implemented, as well as much of the political controversy over its impact.
Data collected from 10 schemes in the report found that within its limits, bicycle use increased by 31% to 172%, while car traffic decreased by 22% to 76%. %. There was also solid evidence that reduced casualties on the roads.
A common criticism of LTNs is that they simply push car use on the outskirts, on the busiest main roads. The study found some evidence of an increase in the number of cycling outside LTNs, while car use also declined slightly, although one area saw a 7% increase.
But in general, the authors said, the evidence on the possible displacement of traffic was mixed. They said it would be best to continue with the LTNs but also introduce complementary measures such as tolling protected roads and bike lanes.
They also said they had found no evidence that LTNs slowed emergency vehicle response times, or that schemes disproportionately benefited richer areas, saying people living within LTN’s habits were accustomed to it. to have a demographic profile similar to those of the border roads.
Graph
While the basic idea of filtering residential streets to limit rat traffic has existed in various ways for decades, the Covid-era LTN rush made the issue much more politicized, especially in London, with the emergence of protest groups.
Among a number of recommendations, the report said councils should try to make schemes as comprehensive as possible to limit traffic travel and try to make them attractive by adding items such as benches and wider sidewalks.
To keep locals close, he added, local authorities could allow a grace period before fining people for violating LTN rules and targeting more groups, but also “discerning” whether people who claimed representing a significant number of opponents actually did.
Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter, every weekday morning at 7:00 BST
The report highlighted the need for more action, noting that while total car ownership in London had declined in recent years, a combination of satellite navigation apps, Uber-type taxis and more home deliveries meant that the number of kilometers traveled by the minor roads of the capital would have done. almost doubled in the decade from 2009.
Nicolas Bosetti of the Center for London, the lead author of the report, said the evidence showed that LTNs could be effective, “but that doesn’t mean they have to be done at low cost.”
He said: “They should also be complemented by additional measures to discourage private car driving and provide practical alternatives for both short and long journeys. This means funding for more beautiful streets, protected bike lanes and complementary measures, such as scrap car programs and mobility credits, as well as improving public transportation. “