Mythbusters: eight common objections to LTNs – and why they are wrong | The Guardian
Low-traffic neighbourhoods have existed for decades but plans often spark fierce debate. We look at some of the biggest concerns
Not all low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are perfect, or do exactly what is intended. But often the objections are based on assumptions that vary from the misplaced to the downright incorrect. Here are some of the myths.
They disproportionately benefit privileged people
It is often argued that because many LTNs focus on residential streets and because property prices tend to be lower on busier roads, all the schemes do is push pollution and noise towards poorer people. But the evidence does not bear this out. A University of Westminster study found that among all age, income and ethnic groups, almost 90% of people live on roads that could be part of an LTN, and that there were few noticeable differences across the various demographics.
More generally, moves to reduce overall motor traffic, which LTNs aim to do, tend to help poorer households, which are less likely to own and use cars but still suffer the impact of their ubiquity.