Some weeks after the publication of the IPSOS Research Report and DfT Guidance, our Active Travel Lead, Paul Murray, met with UK guidance expert, Rhion Jones, to discuss their thoughts on the consultation.

The guidance provides best practice on how to deliver Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). and the research report assesses the success of 4 LTNs across England

The key points to consider:

• Following on from the Plan for Drivers Policy Paper, the Government has kept its promise to create new guidance on the implementation of LTNs.
• The phrase LTN might well disappear and be replaced by “People Friendly Streets” or perhaps calling these simply traffic management schemes as they were in the past.
• There is very little that is new in the research report survey – it is consistent with other LTN surveys showing they are more popular than not (and that most people are too busy living their lives to notice that the scheme is actually happening).
• Monitoring the effects of the schemes remains critical to their success – something that, in my experience, is already being done by many organisations.
• The guidance may be particularly useful to local authorities who are delivering their first LTNs, bringing many of the considerations for LTNs into one place. guidance can, of course, only provide a framework. It cannot tell designers exactly how to design schemes as they need to take account of local considerations/character/feel.
•  The guidance is released at a similar time to when Active Travel England (ATE) releases their Area Check showing how they assess LTN and similar schemes.

More evidence is a clear benefit

The report is correct when it states there is little evidence, or at the very least more is required, on the impact of LTNs within the UK. This report adds to the evidence from assessing more LTN schemes, which is great news for them! The more evidence that is produced, the less other places across the UK need to rely on works in other countries and be brave, like we saw from the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

Could more have been done improve the data

The monitoring and evaluation refers users to the ATE guidance from the Active Travel Tranche 4 Fund Guidance – which is well thought. The ironic thing is this research report did not follow this guidance. The ATF4 specifically mentions that when you are monitoring the success of a site, you take a comparison site where no scheme has been implemented and compare the results. The research report released by the DfT fails to do this, and it would have been possible! One of the four local authorities they assessed could have provided their traffic data. If not, then at least one of the other 90 local authorities they were in touch with for the wider questions in the research report.

It may have also been sensible to compare two LTNs in more detail than the four in this report. It adds weight to the body of evidence for LTNs in the UK. One flaw on the technicalities is that Ipsos Mori only asked for opinions within the LTN. This is disappointing, as it is critical to also to obtain the views of those on boundary roads as well as beyond. From experience, Councils have always sought to do this.

A standard approach to how LTN schemes are assessed

This draft guidance came out around the same time ATE released two new tools (crossing selector and cross section) and two checks (Area and Route) they use to assess the success of ATE funded schemes, to provide some transparency. The area check tool is not something that is particularly designed to help designers, but to provide a standardisation of how LTN schemes (and other similar schemes) are assessed. This will prove useful in understanding how to deliver schemes and ensure they fulfil ATE’s objectives. Of course, the area check does not replace a designer who understands the local area and through consultation creating the balance of how street space should be altered.

Because many were implemented during the COVID years, local authorities have been using temporary filters instead of permanent construction. In hindsight, the guidance suggests that temporary LTNs followed by permanent LTNs might not be the best way forward; better to consult over a permanent scheme. It suggests the use of Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders may have created a more onerous way of implementing LTNs. Had schemes sufficient funding for the construction of permanent filters from the beginning it would have been more appropriate. Implementing the temporary filters, creates confusion, whereas permanent filters show people in a neighbourhood what is possible with reclaiming the road space and how it can be allocated to different uses. This would also mean you would only need to consult with the public once.

How will this change the implementation of schemes moving forward?

So will this report make a difference? Paul, said: “I am not sure this will change much for many of the local authorities who are successful delivering LTNs and want to continue. In my experience, the majority of the engagement set out in the guidance is already undertaken by local authorities and delivered by most consultants and organisations implementing LTNs.”

Sadly, Councils seeking to carry out as few changes as possible to the local area might use the negative spin that Ministers put on this report to argue against such changes. It highlights the need for the Government to provide more funding for consultation on transport schemes. With a General Election looming, it remains to be seen whether this will happen, especially for schemes that require over 12 months to deliver.

Despite this, the guidance will form a good template for delivery for consultancies and organisations who have not yet delivered LTNs, as well as local authorities writing their first tenders/papers for cabinet in councils on looking for consultancy support to deliver them. Of course, it will also be a point of reference for others already experienced in this field.

Having seen up close, the delivery of LTNs over the past few years, they can be an incredible challenge, and this material would have been useful if it had been to hand at that time.