Read on Twitter
LTNs you either love 'em or you hate 'em (for the record, we love them).
But what if one of the reasons you'd been convinced to hate them, turned out not to be true?
Here's a THREAD on new research on LTNs and inequality.
But what if one of the reasons you'd been convinced to hate them, turned out not to be true?
Here's a THREAD on new research on LTNs and inequality.
Before we begin, there are a few folks we should introduce.
First up is @RachelAldred -- genius and all round goddess of active travel. She's the Director of the prestigious @Active_ATA.
First up is @RachelAldred -- genius and all round goddess of active travel. She's the Director of the prestigious @Active_ATA.
Then there's @ersilia_v -- she's also a part of the wonderful ATA -- focussing on issues of equity and health in transport. She is, put simply, *literally* an expert on equality and transport schemes
And finally there's @_wearepossible -- an organisation fighting for a zero carbon society that is built by and for communities. They also have a great logo.
The reason you need to get to know these folks is because they are delightful nerds (
) who have come together to answer one fundamental question about LTNs: who are they for?
) who have come together to answer one fundamental question about LTNs: who are they for?
If you've delved at all into the murky waters of the low traffic neighbourhoods debate, you'll undoubtedly have come across this claim: poor, vulnerable people live on main roads and are disadvantaged by low traffic neighbourhoods.
It *sounds* intuitive. But is it true?
Turns out, no one knew. We asked journalists, academics, experts, government officials AND proponents of the arguments themselves.
Not one of them could produce the data to back it up.
Turns out, no one knew. We asked journalists, academics, experts, government officials AND proponents of the arguments themselves.
Not one of them could produce the data to back it up.
Enter Dr Aldred, Ersilia Verlinghieri and the Possible team.
Instead of continuing to spread an idea that had no factual backing (like so many had been doing) they decided to find our for themselves: was it true?
Here's what they found.
Instead of continuing to spread an idea that had no factual backing (like so many had been doing) they decided to find our for themselves: was it true?
Here's what they found.
First off -- the study found that 90% of Londoners live on residential streets, whereas 5% live on main roads and 5% live on high streets. Given those numbers, it makes sense that residential roads are where the government is intervening first.
When it comes to the equity problems focusing on residential roads over main roads, the report found *very small* benefits for:
- disabled over non-disabled people
- children over adults
- middle income over low or high income earners
- white, black and asian people over others
- disabled over non-disabled people
- children over adults
- middle income over low or high income earners
- white, black and asian people over others
But the conclusion was this: patterns may vary by local area, but across Inner
London as a whole there are few differences in LTN benefits by age group,
income group, ethnic group, or disability status.
London as a whole there are few differences in LTN benefits by age group,
income group, ethnic group, or disability status.
The report also found that, probably due to the difficulties in storing them or their better access to public transport, folks living on main roads and high streets are less likely to have access to a car than those living on residential roads.
Overall, 87% or more of Londoners from each age, ethnic, disability, car ownership, and income group live on residential streets.
So schemes that improve residential streets, improve life for all these folkds.
So schemes that improve residential streets, improve life for all these folkds.
So, what does this mean?
It means that poor and vulnerable people are no more likely to live on main roads than residential roads.
It means that, while we need to reduce car use EVERYWHERE -- starting with the residential roads where 90% of Londoners live makes the most sense.
It means that poor and vulnerable people are no more likely to live on main roads than residential roads.
It means that, while we need to reduce car use EVERYWHERE -- starting with the residential roads where 90% of Londoners live makes the most sense.
It means if you're someone who cares about equity between disabled and non-disabled, between the young and the elderly, between the rich and the rest, and between people of all ethnicities -- then you should feel good about supporting LTNs. Because they are a step towards equity.
And it means that the next time someone tells you that supporting LTNs means disadvantaging London's most vulnerable, you should send them this report -- so they can learn the facts https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf
