Children in Tower Hamlets defended their school street from Council contractors who had come to dismantle it earlier this month8
Our streets are not safe for walkers. Road accidents involving walkers are much more frequent on minor roads than on major ones (in urban areas) – 66% more involving slight injuries, and 17% more for those killed or seriously injured. Minor roads of course lack many of the traffic-controlling features of major roads which increase safety for walkers – in particular traffic lights and pedestrian crossings (some drivers may prefer smaller roads partly because they often lack these hindrances!).1
So Londoners have good reason for saying, in response to a TfL survey, that they are deterred from walking or cycling, or letting their children do so unaccompanied, because the roads are not safe. Furthermore, “improved safety is cited by Londoners as one of the main motivators for walking more”.2
It must be good news, then, for many people that the LTNs (which stop motor traffic from travelling straight through the neighbourhood) which were introduced in London in 2020 massively reduced road traffic injuries for walkers – down to a mere 15% of the pre-pandemic level (the percentage in boundary areas was unchanged).3
Air pollution (NO2) was also reduced (as well as motor traffic) in and around these LTNs, according to a recent study.4 This is another issue of particular importance for children, given the undeniable health benefits of active travel for them:
- Active travel to and from school and elsewhere brings positive health benefits to children – including tackling obesity.
- Babies and children are especially vulnerable to air pollution, because their lungs are still growing and developing.
- Air pollution is worse inside cars stuck in traffic (from the vehicles in front) than for people outside.5
Some children of course need to be taken to school and elsewhere by car. But if safer roads resulted in many other children being able to walk, cycle, scoot or take public transport, this would reduce the overall amount of traffic – not just within LTNs, but in boundary areas as well. Furthermore, less traffic would of course benefit those who need to drive as well as the active travellers (including bus passengers) who can’t or don’t.
Is this claiming too much?! It is common knowledge that the schoolrun accounts for a quarter of the rush-hour traffic in London. And common sense that when a couple starts a family, they often find it convenient to get a car – indeed, households in London that have school-age children are more likely to own a car than those without (two-thirds compared with just over a half, respectively).
What is perhaps more surprising is that these households in London with school-age children who do own a car use their cars for many more trips than those without – half as many again. So this isn’t just for the school-run, but presumably for trips to after-school activities and play-dates as well. These trips are likely to be mostly short and local – just the sort of trip that is easily switchable to walking, cycling or public transport.6
In conclusion, when people express disbelief that LTNs could possibly cause traffic to ‘evaporate’ – i.e. reduce it overall, not just within the LTNs themselves – maybe they are partly thinking of themselves. There is often also a focus on disabled drivers and carers – who of course are not going to be able to give up their car trips. But what about children – should we not be asking them, who constitute a quarter of the population in this neighbourhood?7 Because they:
- are more likely to be attracted to, and able to take up, active travel than older people
- would benefit from it more than older people (healthy activity, air quality)
- make lots of short trips which are very suitable for active travel
_________________________________________________
1 Police injury data 2005-15. https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/full/10.1680/jmuen.16.00068
2 TfL Travel in London Report 11 (2018), p. 121. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-11.pdf
3 Police injury data. https://findingspress.org/article/25633-impacts-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london-on-road-traffic-injuries
4 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625. Air pollution and motor traffic were both reduced, within the LTNs that were the focus of the study, and in boundary areas. Here’s a brief summary on APN of the study.
5 https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/risks-to-childrens-lungs/air-pollution
6 rush-hour: TfL Walking Action Plan (2018), p.13; starting a family: subject of research at the Transport Unit, Univ. of Oxford; households in London with school-age children: TfL Roads Task Force 2011: Tech. Note 12, pp.5-6; Tech. Note 14, p.12-13. Both these sources have barcharts broken down by household income.
7 ‘This neighbourhood’ is roughly the triangle of roads lying between the railway, Alexandra Park, and Albert/Durnsford Road, but is probably relevant more widely in this area; 2011 Census: Nomis local area reports Haringey. The proportion who are more or less disabled are - ‘day-to-day activities limited a lot’ 4% and ‘limited a little’ 6%.
See also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63511420
Replies