Should automobiles be outlawed? Are all motorists malevolent? Given the way some local councils have enforced “low-traffic neighbourhoods” (LTNs) in recent years, it appears that leaders believe so. But it’s less about their desire to reduce traffic—which is a common goal—and more about the manner in which they have addressed local dissent regarding the negative effects of these schemes on daily life.
That’s why I was pleased to see the high court rule last week that Lambeth council in south London had acted unlawfully by disregarding community objections to its recent initiative. Residing in another area of Labour-led Lambeth, I have personally witnessed the council’s pattern of neglecting public concerns about various LTNs within the borough.
Residential streets have been barricaded, leading to significant traffic jams, increased exhaust fumes, and disruption for everyday individuals. Those impacted include elderly residents and individuals with disabilities facing limited access to their homes; pedestrians and cyclists placed at risk by the surge in traffic; businesses isolated from their clientele; and time-strapped parents with young children whose school commutes have doubled.
Additionally, whenever roadworks occur (looking at you, Thames Water!), or incidents or breakdowns take place, streets frequently become severely congested. If activists from groups like Just Stop Oil were to cause this level of chaos, they would likely face legal repercussions.
Local residents’ grievances have been dismissed, their concerns branded as “culture war” prejudice. This is the borough that stood as one of the most formidable pro-remain areas nationally. There’s no “culture war” in play here; it’s simply a council fixated on maintaining a green facade while overlooking petitions and public protests due to a lack of substantive accomplishments.
I have no philosophical opposition to LTNs. I desire reduced traffic levels myself. I am an avid cyclist and often used to take my children to school on my bike whenever possible. There may well be regions where LTNs are beneficial, and I cannot speak for other areas where they have been implemented. However, the situation in Lambeth illustrates how evidence can easily be overlooked and dissent marginalized.
Many LTNs were rolled out in 2020 with little prior consultation, supposedly as a reaction to COVID-19—an odd rationale considering traffic levels were already declining swiftly. The notion was that by blocking off residential streets, traffic would somehow be reduced. While it is true that the streets within LTNs became quieter, in Lambeth, traffic was rerouted onto main roads (termed “boundary roads”), creating long, slow-moving queues in less desirable locales, leaving those residents to deal with the spilled-over traffic and emissions. Unfortunately, their concerns fell on deaf ears. It is perhaps not surprising that Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose young daughter Ella tragically succumbed to an asthma attack exacerbated by air pollution, has voiced her opposition to LTNs.
The councils’ rationale for LTNs soon shifted towards promoting “active travel,” yet in our segment of Lambeth, the hilly terrain makes cycling unfeasible for many. For older adults or individuals with disabilities, the option is even less practical. Those who believe the council is genuinely attending to residents’ concerns should take note of the disastrous rollout of the Streatham Wells LTN in October 2023, which compounded delays adjacent to an existing LTN. Public transportation was caught in the chaos—evidenced by a line of over 40 London buses stuck in a queue down the High Road. Trips that typically covered three miles took two hours. The incident gained worldwide attention; the congestion was so notable it could likely be seen from space. Yet Lambeth persisted, only to reverse course after an intervention by London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, who was understandably distressed by the state of his unmanageable bus routes.
Ultimately, the fundamental issue with LTNs is their punitive approach, lacking in positive incentives. Despite all the restrictions and fines, there has been little to no enhancement in public transportation. No new bus routes have been established to ease travel; there are no additional trains; and across most of south London, the underground network remains absent, a lack of investment that triggers countless unnecessary car journeys throughout the city.
Many might not feel sympathetic towards drivers, especially if they do not own a vehicle. Yet this situation reveals a hypocrisy. Few can claim they don’t rely on a personal driver in some capacity: whether it’s an Uber driver, someone delivering groceries, or the local tradesman. The time lost in traffic, the irritation, and the extra fuel consumption are all shifted onto the little guy.
A solution must exist, but it begins with listening. Lambeth has been revealed as a council that neglects the voices of its constituents. Those opposing LTNs are not merely rabid petrolheads looking to destroy the planet; they are everyday individuals striving to manage their lives, now made considerably more challenging. They deserve to be heard, and those holding power should remember: owning a car is not a crime. Drivers are not villains.
Joseph Harker is the Guardian’s senior editor for diversity and development.
