We must follow the science and put an end to political grandstanding when it comes to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

I have long argued that urban design is a science—just as much as environmental engineering, public health or traffic modelling. Yet while the preservation of habitats for crested newts’ commands rigorous, evidence-based regulatory frameworks and environmental assessments, the design of human habitats—our cities, towns and neighbourhoods—is left vulnerable to hearsay, ideology, short-term-ism, and political grandstanding.

 

The recent declaration by Reform UK to scrap all Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) is a perfect example of treating cities as platforms for populist rhetoric rather than as living systems in need of stewardship.

 

More troubling still, their decision to lump LTNs in with immigration policy—as though congestion management and border control are inherently linked—should ring alarm bells about the quality and intent of urban policy discourse in the UK today. 

 

What’s at stake here is not a trivial matter of road closures or parking preferences. It is the health, equity and liveability of our cities. And more importantly, it is about whether we allow political theatre to dictate the design of the environments in which we live, work, and raise families.

 

LTNs have become a lightning rod in culture war debates, but their actual function and benefits are well-documented. Laura Laker captures this well in her article: “LTNs reduce car use, improve air quality, reduce road danger, and make places more sociable, especially for children and older people.” This isn’t ideology; it’s data.

 

Take Waltham Forest in London. After LTNs were implemented, motor traffic within the neighbourhoods decreased by 46.9%, while boundary road traffic increased only marginally (11.4%), consistent with wider traffic patterns. Analysis by King’s College London found that these LTNs also reduced nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) levels by up to 23%, contributing to improved respiratory health outcomes.

 

Meanwhile, the Living Streets report on the “Pedestrian Pound” found that people on foot spend up to 40% more in town centres over a month than those arriving by car. Public realm improvements led to retail footfall increases of 30%, and retail rental values rose by up to 20%, demonstrating that better walkability supports, not hinders, economic vitality.

 

In Paris, under Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s leadership, ambitious redesigns including mass pedestrianisation, cycling networks, and low-emission zones have delivered a 50% drop in air pollution over the last decade, yes, 50%! These are not fringe experiments. They are evidence-based transformations with measurable public health and environmental returns.

 

 

One of the most dangerous ideas circulating today is the notion that urban policy is just another arena for political differentiation—a way to curry favour with voter demographics by simplifying complex spatial issues into emotionally charged slogans. The conflation of LTNs with “freedom” or “surveillance states” is a case in point, and it represents a gross distortion of the aims of traffic calming and modal shift strategies.

 

Cities are not ideological battlefields. They are systems. Like ecosystems or electrical grids, they respond to inputs—investment, regulation, innovation—and they produce outputs—public health outcomes, economic growth, pollution levels. Good urban policy recognises this complexity and engages with it honestly. It does not pretend that reducing car use is a form of cultural oppression, nor does it suggest that planning for pedestrians and cyclists is somehow a fringe concern.

 

When the narrative around LTNs becomes politically charged, it displaces the more important, evidence-based discussions that need to be had: How do we design cities that support ageing populations? How do we reduce childhood asthma rates, which are demonstrably higher in high-traffic areas? How do we address spatial inequalities in access to green space, healthcare, or affordable housing?

 

 

Where we live affects how we live—and how we die. That may sound dramatic, but it is increasingly borne out in public health data. A 2022 study by Public Health England showed that long-term exposure to air pollution contributed to up to 36,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. Children in high-traffic urban areas are more likely to suffer from asthma, obesity, and reduced cognitive function.

 

Meanwhile, the built environment also shapes mental health and social cohesion. The UK Green Building Council has shown that walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods support lower depression and anxiety rates and help reduce loneliness among older adults.

 

A poorly designed neighbourhood isolates, pollutes, and disenfranchises. A well-designed one encourages activity, supports community, and saves lives. Yet when we allow planning decisions to be made based on media hysteria or political convenience, we abandon the science and ethics needed to improve human wellbeing.

 

 

What is needed now is a cultural shift in how we treat urban design and planning—not as a vague artistic pursuit or political football, but as a discipline grounded in evidence, with real, measurable impacts on quality of life.

 

Planning reform should begin with this recognition. Policies and decisions must be guided by research, whether it comes from behavioural studies, public health, or environmental data. Tools like Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), walkability audits, and emissions modelling should be as integral to the planning process as profit projections or traffic flow forecasts, indeed more so.

 

Urban design must also be seen as a long-term investment, not just a reaction to electoral cycles. The benefits of LTNs, green infrastructure, and high-quality public space often unfold over years, not months. They require political bravery, not populist reflexes.

 

The Reform party’s pledge to scrap LTNs is not just short-sighted—it is emblematic of a broader failure from all sides to treat cities as the serious, complex systems that they are. It is political grandstanding at its worst, and our urban environments—already under pressure from climate change, population growth, and economic inequality—deserve better.

 

If we continue to let our built environment be shaped by media headlines, ideological posturing, or self-interest, we will fail to create the kinds of places people need. But if we commit to treating urban design as a science, to rooting our decisions in evidence and empathy, then we can build healthier, more inclusive, more resilient cities.

 

The choice is ours: city as science—or city as spectacle.

---

Christopher Martin is the co-founder and director of Urban Movement