Resident experience of new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London: qualitative insights from a mixed methods study.

Abstract

Background: Reducing private car use and increasing active travel is essential for transport decarbonisation and addressing public health crises of road traffic injuries, physical inactivity and air pollution. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have emerged as a key intervention, particularly in London, United Kingdom, to create better environments for walking, wheeling and cycling by restricting through traffic on residential streets. While evidence suggests that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods reduce car use, increase walking and cycling, and improve road safety, their implementation has been politically contentious and has elicited a wide range of public reactions.

Methods: This paper presents findings from the qualitative strand of a wider 3.5-year mixed-methods study of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London. Qualitative data were collected to explore the lived experiences of Low Traffic Neighbourhood residents, with a focus on how residents - including disabled residents - perceive and navigate the schemes. Participants were selected from among those living in or on the road adjacent to four selected Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, to ensure a diversity of views on the schemes, and diverse demographic characteristics were represented. Using 61 go-along interviews and 7 focus groups, we explore how Low Traffic Neighbourhoods influence residents' experiences and perceptions of travel.

Results: Our findings show that residents' attitudes towards Low Traffic Neighbourhoods often shape their reported experiences: those who are initially supportive tend to notice and highlight positive impacts, while opponents are more likely to report no change or negative impacts. Overall, participants observed increased walking and cycling, improved perceptions of road safety, and reduced noise and air pollution within Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. However, concerns were raised by some disabled residents about longer journey times and accessibility problems. Notably, many residents living on boundary roads perceived an increase in traffic and pollution, although quantitative data on the impacts of Low Traffic Neighborhoods on boundary roads remain mixed.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of considering residents' lived experiences in scheme evaluations. While Low Traffic Neighbourhoods contribute to climate and health objectives, their implementation should be guided by a just transition framework to ensure benefits are equitably distributed.

Limitations and future work: Our study's main limitation is that it contributes to an evidence body of research on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods being predominantly from London. Future research should extend beyond London, explore a wider range of schemes and attend to experiences of further marginalised population groups.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number NIHR135020.