There’s a lot of debate about LTNs at the moment with a few voices getting pretty heated. All kinds of accusations linked to class, race etc but it’s worth considering the evidence.

LTNs aren’t completely new. Dr @RachelAldred - an academic at Westminster University has looked at schemes that have been running in Waltham Forest. The initial data from 2017 was inconclusive...

...but later research shows a “substantial” increase “active travel” (ie walking and cycling) and a “consistent trend toward reduced car use” in LTN areas. http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/

This seems to answer the most substantive criticism of LTNs that it just moves the problem elsewhere. People change their behaviour if you nudge them.

A similar criticism has been made of “school streets” - where roads around a school are closed to traffic during drop off / pick up. However, a study by @EdinburghNapier University showed the opposite....

The evidence shows “the total number of motor vehicles across school closures AND neighbouring streets reduces” Active travel also increases. https://www.napier.ac.uk/~/media/images/news/school-street-closures/school-streets-closure-traffic-displacement-literature-review-final.pdf

What about the impact on businesses? Of course many businesses are struggling at the moment for reasons unrelated to LTNs. But the evidence on improving pedestrian access to shops shows it can boost footfall and earnings....

This report from @livingstreets contains a range of evidence from academic literature reviews showing an increase of up to 40% in footfall for business with pedestrian improvements. It’s also good value for money. https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/3890/pedestrian-pound-2018.pdf

In Stoke-on-Trent, a £10m investment to make an area of the city more pedestrian friendly increased commercial footfall by 30%.

Of course not everyone can walk or cycle every journey. But LTNs don’t cause traffic on neighbouring roads, people cause traffic by the choices they make. And it is the lowest income / BAME residents that suffer disproportionately from health impacts. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/10/londons-black-communities-disproportionately-exposed-to-air-pollution-study

A final point about “evidence” - I’ve tried where possible in this thread to link to academic studies. Evidence is not a photo of traffic your neighbour posts on Facebook that fits your narrative as to the cause. Nor is it signatures on an online petition. Facts still matter.

Oh and apology for demoting @RachelAldred to a Dr when she is in fact a Prof!

Erratum: just reading this report on the choices people make when travelling in London - 71% of private vehicle trips could feasibly be made by an alternative mode
(walking, cycling or public transport) of which 4.2m journeys could be cycled. p47 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-11.pdf