Since March, many councils across Britain have installed new barriers in residential streets, creating zones where through traffic is limited and “rat running” made impossible. Up to 20 councils in London and 54 outside the capital have implemented these “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”—using bollards, planters and road signs to encourage walking and cycling during the pandemic and make streets safer for local residents.
All of this would appear to be uncontentious—what is there not to like?
Despite the obvious benefits of such schemes, which both improve the local environment and reduce the climate change impacts of transport, in many places they have been met by a fierce wave of opposition, with both online and real-life protests. Some Conservative councils, like Wandsworth, have already reversed implementation of their traffic reduction schemes and blamed the liberal elite at (Labour-run) Transport for London for trying to impose them. What is going on?
Attempts by environmental campaigners and councillors to confront opposition in the spring exposed a lack of common ground—it felt like each side was talking about a different reality. Walking and cycling advocates and councillors alike were bewildered by the strong reaction to what they thought were modest measures, tried and tested since the 1980s.
But deeper forces are at play. Rather than speaking to those genuinely confused about the benefits and negatives, the issue of reducing traffic in residential streets has somehow become a proxy in a “culture war,” in parallel with a host of other current issues such as Brexit, face masks and singing "Rule, Britannia!" at the Proms. Some opponents put forward the crazy notion that Covid-19 is being used as an “excuse” by decision-makers to control motorists.
This process of abstraction explains why the outrage has been so much greater than we saw with any earlier campaigns against cycle lanes or the pedestrianisation of high streets. It also serves to explain the speed with which local opposition activists have articulated a common defence of the status quo, even where this is an unpleasant, polluted environment.
It is no good simply stating that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods reduce pollution and traffic and make life better for residents; supporters are accused of reflecting the whim of the “metropolitan middle class.” Opponents have frequently made the argument that these schemes benefit more affluent people living on residential streets, while traffic is “pushed” to main roads inhabited by the less well-off. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite: poorer people have far lower levels of car ownership and currently suffer disproportionately from the effects of pollution, and there is no evidence that they live predominantly on main roads.
The false class dichotomy overlooks economic definitions in favour of applying a cultural “do-gooder” label, leaving local campaigners and councillors in a trap, where pointing out the ways that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods benefit the poorest residents only serves to reinforce their image as part of the liberal elite.
Arguably the epitome of the liberal elite, the Labour leader of Islington Council Richard Watts, justified the implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods with the statement: “Car ownership in inner London is linked to income. The richer you are, the more likely you are to own a car. The truth is we're stopping affluent people polluting working-class communities.” This statement doesn’t fit into the false class dichotomy, but that’s exactly the point. Watts is correct, but the process of abstraction means opponents aren’t talking about transport anymore.
As one anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhood protestor in Islington put it: "People are using it as a way to make environmental points.” Others talk about such schemes ending their “freedom of movement.” But there are no “rights” being restricted. As expressed well by transport blogger Joe Dunckley, “So much of this discourse is people screaming about their choice being taken away from them, when the exact opposite is true. No option is being taken away from people. Nobody is being banned from driving by a bollard in a back street.”
Key to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods is the idea that driving short distances in residential areas has a negative health effect on your neighbours, acknowledging the fact that individual behaviour and its environmental effects are inseparable.
It is worth asking if, far from being an “unlikely frontline” in the culture war, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are its perfect prey, because they exemplify the interdependent relationship that we have with our local environments: bollards dissuade rat running, so traffic falls and walking and cycling becomes easier, so fewer people choose to drive, and so on. Every win for the culture warriors closes down options for spatial changes in our towns and cities, giving succour to individualist conservatism.
Moving forward, transport campaigners, councillors, and anyone who wants to walk or cycle in their neighbourhood should fight for greener local policies. Councillors in particular should consider carefully whether anything is to be gained from pandering to the idea of consultation on every decision.
Supporters must take the “feeling” aspects and re-frame them as communal motivations. We all want our kids to get to school safely, we all want to save money, we all want better air quality, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods help us achieve those things. How bizarre that any more needs to be said.
