Technology

#Residents love low-traffic neighborhoods — but are they here to stay?

#Residents love low-traffic neighborhoods — but are they here to stay?

This article was originally published by Christopher Carey on Cities Today, the leading news platform on urban mobility and innovation, reaching an international audience of city leaders. For the latest updates follow Cities Today on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube, or sign up for Cities Today News.

From Bogota to Bologna, the introduction of expanded pedestrian zones and pop-up cycle lanes has been a global trend during the pandemic, but with traffic levels rising and pushback from some motorists, are repurposed streets here to stay?

In October, the UK’s Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told London’s borough councils he was “not prepared to tolerate” badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes that impose “sweeping changes” to entire communities.

“No one should be in doubt about our support for motorists,” Shapps warned a stark reminder to those who have championed healthy street initiatives over the past six months.

London’s schemes, which sprung up across the city over the summer months after a £250 million (US$330 million) government funding boost, have included wider pavements, pop-up cycle lanes, and low-traffic neighborhoods (LTNs) where some residential streets are blocked to motor traffic.

The temporary measures have been introduced to help facilitate social distancing on streets and make walking and cycling a safer and more attractive option for trips previously made on public transport or by car.

While welcomed by most, some of the measures have proved highly controversial in parts of the UK capital, with local councils facing street protests from residents and in some cases attacks on city property.

[Read: Why AI is the future of home security]

Pushback

LTNs, which are characterized by giant planter pots and bollards strategically placed on roads in residential neighborhoods to restrict or block traffic, have been a particular sticking point for some residents.

“You have to be incredibly careful about imposing measures on local communities,” Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs said.

Briggs, a member of the London council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, is currently campaigning for the removal of his borough’s LTN, saying the lack of consultation is one of the main reasons for local opposition.

“I’m all for cycling and walking. For me, it’s the way it’s being implemented that is the issue.

“Councils shouldn’t use the funding they are given by the central government to bring in schemes without consulting properly first. For me, bringing in a scheme and then asking people why they don’t like it is a ‘cart before horse’ way of doing it.”

In September, London’s Wandsworth council removed its LTNs less than one month after their introduction following a furious local backlash. The response from residents and concerns around access for emergency vehicles were cited as the main reasons for the withdrawal, with videos of ambulances and fire engines struggling to gain access seen across social media.

London’s Ambulance Service has since raised concerns regarding a number of LTNs, with a spokesperson saying: “Changes to road layouts, traffic management schemes and road closures all have the potential to impede our response to the most critically ill people and could delay life-saving treatments or conveyance to the nearest emergency department.”

Several other London councils have since backtracked on their LTNs, and others have delayed or postponed their introduction.

Catch 22?

London’s borough councils face difficult choices. Having received a mandate from the government to implement measures rapidly, most councils have adopted an ‘act first, talk later’ approach, particularly since the interventions are temporary (meaning they don’t technically require a public consultation) and give some scope for experimentation.

To add to councils’ headaches is the complicated patchwork of London’s road network, and its governance. Transport for London (TfL) operates the primary artery roads in the city, while each of the 32 local boroughs are responsible for secondary roads. This means that there could be two entirely separate schemes operating in tandem – a scenario which, at times, has caused chaos for motorists.

“It can lead to some insane situations,” said London’s Cycling and Walking Commissioner, Dr Will Norman, the man tasked by the mayor with facilitating TfL’s active travel initiatives.

“There’s a road I know where one lane is managed by one authority and the other lane by another. Obviously, both authorities have competing interests, so this leads to challenges around the overall strategic direction.”