|
There are roads in Hackney which have long carried excessive amounts of motor traffic. Think Graham Road, Dalston Lane, Balls Pond Road, or Homerton High Street. In fact, taking Graham Road as an example, residents there have been protesting the levels of motor traffic since at least the 1970s, and DfT say current traffic flows are actually below what they were at their last 'manual count' in 2018 (but still far, far too high). 44% of traffic on Hackney’s main roads is through-traffic that doesn’t start or end in the Borough. The exasperation of residents and bus users with the congested state of these roads is understandable, and desperation to find solutions can sometimes lead to people suggesting abandoning surrounding LTNs and opening up parallel routes. This seems logical, doesn’t it? More capacity means less congestion? But this solution would be doomed to failure. In this blogpost we explain why, and what should be done instead. When Transport Planners wanted to bulldoze Hackney for motorways We have to start with a brief bit of history. The number of cars on our streets has continuously risen since the dawn of the mass motoring age. By 2019 there were around 12x more miles driven on UK roads than in 1949. This situation is a result of policy choices that successive governments have made, sometimes without understanding their implications, to prioritise the car over alternative transport options. And when every policy prioritises the choice to drive, you can hardly blame people for choosing to drive in ever greater numbers. In response to increasing traffic chaos in the 1960s, the government commissioned a report called ‘Traffic in Towns’, published in 1963, that set out how cities would have to change to accommodate the motor age. The solutions were brutal: Whole districts would need to be compulsorily purchased and levelled to make way for urban motorways to speed cars to their destinations. A huge push to make driving faster, easier and more convenient. In light of this in London the GLC planned a new system of ‘Ringways’, urban motorways that would finally solve London’s traffic congestion. ‘Ringway 1’ the ‘North Cross Route’ (see picture below) would’ve been a huge urban motorway that ran along the alignment of, and then parallel to, Graham Road in Hackney. It aimed to solve the increasing east/west traffic congestion. It would have entailed huge scale demolition and left the whole centre of Dalston as a giant motorway junction.  How Dalston town centre would've looked if Ringway 1 Had been constructed (Image: London Metropolitan Archives)  The route Ringway 1 would have taken in Hackney Thankfully this never got built, with only the ‘East Cross Route’ (M11 link to the Blackwall Tunnel) seeing the light of day in East London (incidentally a road which decimated the communities along it and created a bottleneck at the tunnel which even more recent roadbuilding at Silvertown has tried to fix).  The East Cross Route looking north away from the city from 'Red Path' on the edge of Hackney - the part of Ringway 1 that did get built. This image was taken at a quiet time but the road is frequently congested. It did nothing to relieve wider traffic congestion in Hackney either, which continued to grow from the East Cross Route's construction in the early 1970s right up until it peaked in the early 2000s when London congestion charging and other measures were brought in (image: © Will Petty) The reason these plans were not realised in full was that people came to understand that extra road capacity can’t relieve traffic congestion in the long term. Or at least not without unreasonable social harms, so the plans became deeply unpopular. This is an important lesson we need to keep in mind now, whenever there are attempts to fix the ongoing congestion on Hackney’s roads. The reality of ‘Induced Demand’ All very interesting as a quirky bit of Hackney history, but how does this relate to roads policy in Hackney today? Well, many of the same reasons that killed the ringways apply equally to other attempts to relieve congestion by increasing road capacity. But the harms from other methods are just not always quite so glaringly obvious, and this can make them dangerous. The effect of leaving open parallel through-routes in residential areas has had exactly the same effect as adding lanes to major roads. Over time, both the major A-roads and many minor roads too have become congested as traffic displaced by congestion on designated through-roads has spread to every alternative route it can. LTNs are an attempt to put this displaced traffic back onto the major road network adapted to take it. It is so tempting to think we could open up alternative new routes near our congested main roads and have glorious free-flowing conditions on both! Except we know in practice that just isn’t what happens when policy prioritises driving. Traffic is not like water in a pipe; it is not a fixed quantity which sufficient fixed capacity will carry. It is the result of thousands of individual decisions as to when, how and whether to make a journey. If you make driving easier, faster, and friction-free then of course more people will choose to drive. So, if you open up new routes, for a short while you may get better conditions and easier car journeys. But quickly the extra demand for driving this generates leads to more car journeys, swallowing up the gain over time until a new equilibrium is reached. Both roads end up congested. More car journeys are made overall, more pollution, more road danger, less active travel, neighbourhoods destroyed, and all for no meaningful relief for those on main roads. And when the new capacity doesn’t fix the problem, frustrated drivers usually just call for even more: ‘Just one more lane’ or ‘just one more through-route’ will fix it.  Wider Lanes, Better Traffic? © COTE cartoon nacto.org This effect is called ‘induced demand’ and is an important tenet of traffic engineering and transport planning. It is so predictable there is even a formula to calculate the impact of increased traffic from new roads. It may seem counter-intuitive, and certainly inconvenient to those who want a simple solution, but essentially congestion will reach an equilibrium with whatever road capacity is provided. Congestion is an inevitable part of car-centric planning, and it can never be beaten in cities by adding more road capacity and opening up new routes. You can see the extreme of this by looking at places that did end up building their ‘ringways’ and designing cities around increasing convenience to drive. Surely, for all the massive social destruction this entailed, they at least solved the problem of traffic congestion? Well no. They didn’t. Here is the Katy Freeway in Texas, which goes right into downtown Houston, 26 lanes yet still plagued by queuing traffic. (Fun fact: Despite the 26 lanes and massive use of public space, the Katy Freeway still carries fewer than half the number of people each day than London's Elizabeth Line, showing just how staggeringly inefficient transport by private car is).  © Smiley N. Pool / Houston Chronicle https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/World-s-widest-freeway-is-not-where-Turner-thinks-7248455.php Or the urban highways of LA, one of the world’s most congested cities:  © SmartCitiesWorld https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/la-named-as-most-traffic-clogged-city-in-the-world-1402 The evidence is clear; no matter how much capacity you build, you can never solve urban congestion by opening more lanes, more routes or more space for cars. The solution to congestion on Hackney’s main roads is not to open up more parallel roads. But all hope is not lost! There is another way, and it works. How to defeat urban road congestion What is really interesting is that the opposite of induced demand is also true. When road capacity is reduced, and driving made less convenient, the number of car journeys falls as people switch to relatively more convenient (and less harmful) modes. This is backed by extensive evidence. It comes down to what you prioritise. “If you invite more cars, you get more cars. If you make more streets better for cars you get more traffic. If you make more bicycle infrastructure you get more bicycles. If you invite people to walk more and use public spaces more, you get more life in the city. You get what you invite.” Streets can be designed for alternatives. Minor residential roads can be closed to through-traffic that has been displaced by congestion from the major routes and now harms an ever-wider area. Fewer car journeys will be made. And by closing minor roads, conditions are created for alternatives to grow. Walking and cycling become more pleasant. Health and social inequalities reduce and access inclusion improves. We ask Hackney’s politicians to resist the idea there is any simple solution to main road congestion, and instead take the difficult decisions to limit the capacity and priority for motorists. The only way to defeat congestion and road harms is to invest in and prioritise alternatives. See our manifesto and main roads page for how! Join us here!
5 Comments
 Before and After views of the Tyssen St changes On Friday 26 June 2026 Hackney Council launched a consultation on changes to Tyssen Street behind Hoxton Trust Community Garden. As a result of the investment the space will see many incremental improvements such as planting trees, adding benches, and widening a footpath. It will also result in the demolition of a play space to make room for the subsidised storage of dangerous, environmentally damaging private motor vehicles on public land. As we explained in our recent parking blogpost, providing convenient and available parking space increases car ownership and induces increased demand for driving. Hackney Council says the total number of parking bays in the general area remain the same after the changes because other parking bays were eliminated, so in essence the parking bays were not created, but “moved”. This is misleading. The Council is not excavating the existing parking bays and carrying them to their new location. The old parking bays are rightfully being transformed into a more valuable use for more people (greenery). At the same time, a community space (the play area) is being demolished to create brand new parking bays. Here's Marvin Street off Graham Road with parking, and now without. Which do you prefer? Cars are immensely space inefficient, so to transport the same number of people as could be transported by walking, cycling, or public transport vastly more road space is required. Cars spend most of their time unused, which then requires additional wasted land to store them while they are parked. If everyone in Hackney drove everywhere, most of our community spaces would need to be demolished to accommodate their cars, but thankfully only 8.5% of journeys in Hackney are made by car and in the area immediately around the improvements, 79% of households don't own a car. You’d never realise the percentage is so small looking at a typical street in Hackney though, since much of the public realm is still dominated by that small minority of journeys. As a result of this space inefficiency, the new usage for the play space (i.e. car parking) will only be available to a handful of people, and only for a few hours a day at most when they actually use their vehicles, unlike the play area that was available to everyone all day. The false premise behind the proposal is that in order for the community to acquire additional green space it must pay for it by sacrificing valuable space for the community elsewhere. We can have both.  Murrain "Play" Road, N4 How could the scheme better support a lower traffic Hackney? The existing play area is not in great shape and awkwardly disconnected from the green space, so improvements are welcome. Alternatively, it could be used for trees, greenery, a rain garden, seating, or any other creative purpose. If it is still destined for parking, a sensible tweak would be to make it cycle parking, where the same space provides transport for six people instead of one. Even better, the parking bays between the green space and play area could be converted to a more equitable use to connect the two. There are many right answers, but one clearly wrong answer is paving it over for car parking. We suggest a 50% net reduction of all-purpose bays comprising some complete removals and some conversion to disabled-only, loading, and electric charging only bays. Cars cause immense harm, and most of them are used, when they are used at all, for single occupancy journeys that could alternatively be made by walking, cycling or public transport. Still, there are journeys in Hackney that need to be made by car, so it would be understandable to keep some parking bays while ensuring a net reduction. However, unless the Council takes opportunities to lessen the priority given to driving and private car storage, truly transformative change remains out of reach. Every time the council spends money on a public realm scheme, it should ask itself: “How does this contribute to our manifesto aim of ‘a 30% reduction in miles driven on Hackney roads by 2030’?” If the answer is that it doesn’t, it needs further review. Low Traffic Hackney urges its readers to complete the Council’s consultation and request a net reduction of parking bays to unlock additional space for the whole community. As Hackney braces for more frequent heatwaves, most discussions focus on climate change and carbon emissions. But there's another important reason to reduce traffic in our neighbourhoods: cars and vans make our streets hotter right now. Motor vehicles don't simply pollute the air and emit carbon dioxide. They also act as thousands of small heaters spread across our streets, adding heat directly into the urban environment and making heatwaves more dangerous. Traffic is a hidden source of urban heating Many people have heard of the "urban heat island" effect. This describes how cities become hotter than surrounding countryside because buildings, roads and pavements absorb heat from the sun during the day and slowly release it at night. But researchers are increasingly recognising that traffic itself is a significant and often overlooked source of heat. Every petrol or diesel car is essentially an inefficient heat engine. Only a fraction of the fuel's energy is used to move the vehicle. Most of the energy is lost as heat through:
Electric vehicles are more efficient, but they still produce waste heat from motors, batteries, brakes and tyres. Thousands of vehicles moving through busy urban streets can therefore create a substantial amount of additional warming, particularly in dense areas where heat becomes trapped between buildings. Recent research from the University of Manchester has developed new methods for measuring traffic-generated heat and found that vehicle use can measurably increase urban temperatures and alter how heat moves between roads, buildings and the surrounding air.  Extreme temperaures in Hackney, not unusual Parked cars also make neighbourhoods hotter The effect isn't limited to moving traffic. A study published in 2025 found that parked cars have been largely ignored in urban heat studies, despite covering large areas of our streets. Vehicles parked along kerbs absorb sunlight and store heat, changing the thermal properties of the street and contributing to warmer local temperatures. On a sunny day anyone touching the bonnet of a parked car already knows this instinctively. Cars become remarkably hot because they absorb and retain solar energy. Multiplied by hundreds or thousands of parked vehicles, this becomes an important factor in how hot our neighbourhoods feel. Congestion can increase temperatures Traffic congestion appears to make matters worse. Research in Chicago found that slower-moving traffic was associated with increases in urban heat island intensity. Put simply, traffic jams do not only waste time and worsen air pollution – they may also make cities hotter. This matters because heat is not just uncomfortable. It is dangerous. High temperatures increase the risk of dehydration, heat exhaustion, heatstroke and cardiovascular illness. Older people, children, and those with underlying health conditions are particularly vulnerable. Warm nights can be especially harmful because our bodies need cooler temperatures to recover from daytime heat.  Hackney main road traffic Roads and parking spaces are part of the problem Cars affect temperatures in another important way: they require large amounts of land. Roads, car parks and paved surfaces absorb solar radiation very efficiently. Dark asphalt can become much hotter than nearby green spaces during sunny weather. Trees and soil cool the environment through shade and evaporation. Asphalt does the opposite. It stores heat during the day and releases it slowly overnight, keeping neighbourhoods warmer long after sunset. This means that reducing traffic can have a double benefit:
We already know how to cool our neighbourhoods The encouraging news is that many of the solutions are already well understood, and are being introduced to an extent in Hackney. Research consistently shows that cities can reduce temperatures by:
Cities around the world are beginning to demonstrate what is possible. Medellín in Colombia has reportedly reduced temperatures in some areas by around 2°C through extensive planting programmes and green corridors.  Amhurst Road sustainable drainage planting Low-traffic neighbourhoods are climate adaptation
Low-traffic neighbourhoods are often discussed in terms of cleaner air, safer streets and reducing carbon emissions. These benefits remain hugely important. But there is another reason to support them. As summers become hotter, reducing motor traffic can help make our streets cooler and more comfortable places to live. Fewer cars mean less waste heat, less asphalt dedicated to traffic and parking, and more space for trees and greenery that actively cool neighbourhoods. Heatwaves are becoming one of the greatest public health challenges facing UK cities. Creating streets designed for people rather than through-traffic will not solve climate change on its own. But it is one practical step we can take now to make Hackney and other urban areas healthier, greener and more resilient to the hotter summers that are increasingly becoming our new normal. Conclusion If we want neighbourhoods that remain liveable during hotter summers, we need fewer heat-generating vehicles and more space devoted to people, trees and nature. People tend to think of LTNs as a policy to make local streets nicer or better to walk or cycle, or perhaps if they oppose them, how they can make driving less convenient. But most people don’t think of LTNs as a public health policy. The mass-motoring age has led to enormous changes in people’s patterns of movement, how we experience cities and even the air that we breathe. As with so much in our society, the distribution of benefits and harms from this has been grossly unfair. In this blogpost we talk about how car-dominated cities have contributed to a public health crisis, and how the solution is to re-prioritise transport in cities away from cars, and reallocate roadspace to alternatives. There have been four critical environmental health harms that have resulted from allowing cars to dominate our cities (there are others too, but these are key from a health perspective).  Air Pollution The Royal College of Physicians estimate the annual cost of urban air pollution at over £27 billion, with air pollution contributing to 30,000 premature deaths in the UK, stealing healthy years from people living in polluted areas. These costs are not uniformly experienced. The most deprived communities of London more commonly live in the most polluted areas, creating a basic inequality in exposure. More deprived communities are also more at risk from pollution because of vulnerability from generally less good health. Thankfully London’s strong policies to reduce car usage and air pollution since 2016, including ULEZ, support for electric vehicles and LTNs, mean that pollution concentrations have declined faster in areas of deprivation in London making action to tackle air pollution a rare equality success story. But there is much more to do. Road Traffic Noise Environmental noise is rarely given the attention it deserves and for this reason is considered a ‘neglected pollutant’. In fact, noise, just like air pollution, has very serious health implications caused by chronic (long term) exposure. Specifically, road traffic noise leads to significantly increased risk of heart disease, heart attacks, strokes and impairment to children’s learning. Noise also causes nuisance and degrades quality of life. Finally, it leads to financial costs such as the need to upgrade building insulation and use expensive glazing when building homes in areas blighted by noise. DEFRA estimates the annual social cost of urban road noise in England at £7-10 billion although this is likely to be a huge underestimate as it is based on noise mapping data which excludes noisy minor roads. Being a neglected pollutant, there are few detailed studies into the equality impacts of traffic noise, but loss of life years from the health impacts is associated with income deprivation in London. Road casualties Allowing cars to dominate densely populated areas has been catastrophic for public safety. In the UK in 2024 over 29,000 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads with an almost unbelievable 128,000 casualties of all severities. In Hackney 117 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2024 with collision and casualty risk amongst the worst in London. Nationally the financial cost of this is over £55 billion. But of course that does nothing to represent the human cost, the lives ruined and families ripped apart. Or how the risk and danger put people off making healthy active transport choices. And just like air pollution, obesity and inactivity, the inequality of road casualties in London is glaring. The more deprived the area, the higher the risk that someone will be seriously injured or killed in a road traffic collision, with the 30 per cent most deprived postcodes having more than double the number of casualties per kilometre amongst people travelling in that area compared with the least deprived 30 per cent, and also more than double the casualty risk for the people who live in these postcodes. Obesity and Inactivity Between 1949 and 2019, UK motor vehicle traffic increased over twelve-fold from 28.9 to 356.5 billion annual vehicle miles, largely driven by steady growth in car traffic.  This has transformed cities and towns to the point most streets suffer from negative effects. It has caused community severance and blighted streets for other uses, discouraged active travel and led to a collapse in physical activity with, for example, cycling miles plummeting from 14.7 billion in 1949 (when the population was 25% smaller) to under 4 billion today. 40% of 40 to 60 year olds are now doing less than 10 minutes of brisk walking each month, with the population overall being 20% less active than in the 1960s. Over a third of people are not doing enough physical activity to maintain good health. Obesity and lack of physical activity are both strongly linked to deprivation. Between 2015 to 2016 and 2023 to 2024, the proportion of physically inactive adults increased in the most deprived areas of England and decreased in the least deprived areas, widening inequality over this period. In 2023 to 2024, the level of physical inactivity for adults in the most deprived areas was 2.3 times higher than for those in the least deprived areas. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see a link between the disproportionate levels of pollution, road danger and noise in more deprived areas and the fact people in them are so much less active. Who wants to walk, cycle or exercise on busy, traffic-dominated, noisy and polluted streets? The impact on children The effect of ever-increasing car dominance on children has been particularly stark. As a group legally unable to drive, in the space of a generation they have lost the ability both to travel independently and to safely play in the streets around their homes. In London as a whole 23.2% of children in Year 6 were considered obese in 2024/5, compared to 22.2% in England, but this masks big disparities depending on Borough and deprivation. Hackney is one of the 10 worst London Boroughs for childhood obesity, with 24.9% of year 6 children here being obese.  Obesity, inactivity and the isolation caused by traffic-dominated streets also affect mental health. Shockingly, data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2022) shows that the UK’s 15-year-olds had the lowest average life satisfaction in Europe. More children in City and Hackney have risk factors for poor mental health than in both the rest of London and England as a whole.
By contrast, in the Netherlands, where residential districts are routinely designed as traffic-filtered ‘Woonerf’, and children independently access comprehensive networks of safe protected cycling infrastructure, children are healthier and have been assessed by UNICEF as the happiest in the world. So how do LTNs fit into all this? LTNs can play a very significant role in addressing these 4 public health issues. Both academic studies and council monitoring data show LTNs have contributed to large falls in air pollution in London. An Oxford University Study also shows LTNs reduced noise both within the LTN and on boundary roads and led to more pleasant natural soundscapes. One critical benefit is to safety. A recent comprehensive study in the BMJ of 113 LTNs showed LTNs were associated with a 35% reduction in all injuries, rising to 37% for deaths and serious injuries. The study concluded that creating these LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury, without any negative effect on boundary road safety. Hundreds of families saved from the devastation of road violence by this simple policy. And of course, with cleaner air, peaceful low-noise environments and confidence in the safety of local streets (alongside a reduction in the priority for short car journeys), comes a clear incentive to use active travel to get around. A survey of Hackney residents, the Walthamstow Mini-Holland study, and others, have shown a consistent trend towards increased minutes of walking and cycling in the LTN areas, which will inevitably translate into health benefits. Charity ‘Playing Out’ and academic Tim Gill identify transport policy as critical to improving health and social outcomes for children. To tackle childhood obesity it is essential that local streets are suitable for children to play, that children can easily and independently access outside space, parks and leisure facilities, and have regular incidental activity (such as travelling actively to school). LTNs can achieve all of these aims. It is common to hear about alleged inequalities from LTNs. People wrongly say they only benefit rich people. Or they close the roads and restrict freedom. But there is not nearly enough consideration of the existing harms that come from doing nothing, or treating the current car-dominated state of our streets as natural or inevitable. Our message to politicians is this: Not taking action, or following less effective traffic reduction policies, is causing huge harm and inequality right now. We know how to fix this, the solutions are clear, now we have to urgently get on and do it. Here’s what we think Hackney Council should do:
The election on May 7th resulted in a political earthquake for Hackney, with the Green Party winning a historic landslide over the longstanding Labour administration, which will provide a comfortable and stable majority. Many congratulations to Zoe Garbett and Hackney Green Party.  The Greens’ manifesto (just like ours!) promised to reduce traffic by 30% by 2030, an ambitious target which will require rapid and radical change. There is much to do. So what are the immediate challenges stacked up in the in-tray, and what would we hope to see from the Greens first? Here are five key challenges, and our thoughts and recommendations of how they could best be approached: 1. Dalston LTN The previous administration left an ‘oven-ready’, comprehensive and high quality LTN scheme in Dalston which urgently needs to be implemented. The Greens supported this too, so we assume it will go ahead. However, the previous plan was to phase in the LTN in stages, taking over a year before it is even fully in place. We feel this is a risky and potentially chaotic plan that will risk unpredictable short term traffic displacement from a partially implemented scheme, and extend the difficult period of transition when opposition may be highest. We are doubtful the previously planned phasing is the best strategy, either practically or politically. How will this play out? Low Traffic Hackney view: Implement Dalston LTN quickly as per the current design, but implement it in one phase and much faster than previously planned. Get all measures installed in the shortest possible period and then have a soft start for enforcement where for a few weeks vehicle contraventions get a warning letter but no financial penalty. Do it and do it quickly so disruption is reduced and full benefits show as soon as possible 2. Chatsworth LTN The Chatsworth LTN is already implemented, and like every major traffic reduction scheme, it initially proved controversial. Anger spilled over at public meetings organised within days of implementation and protests were held outside the Town Hall. The Green Party promised to listen and review, not remove the scheme, so we anticipate it will be kept but there is potential for amendments. Low Traffic Hackney view: Take time with this one, the LTN is in and it is still early days. There is now nothing to be gained from rushing decisions. The Green mandate is to listen to all perspectives, so we would like to see them take the time to do this, and to monitor traffic as the scheme begins to settle. The LTN was implemented at the worst possible point in the electoral cycle and so the ‘panic / chaos’ phase occurred in the run up to an election.  The 'Goodwin Curve' which shows how support for traffic reduction schemes dips around implementation and then builds as benefits start to appear Further, the LTN suffers from being a partial scheme with timed (i.e. not 24/7) closures and internal displacement routes that leave some local minor roads excluded and some residents feeling resentful, whilst some supporters feel short-changed on a more comprehensive scheme. We expect opposition to reduce from its post-implementation peak and support to build as people become accustomed to changes. Any review of filter locations and timings should give time for it to settle further to get any necessary changes right. Traffic reduction is difficult and opposition is inevitable. Take time to listen to all groups and monitor how traffic reacts over the coming months before making any final decision on what, if anything, to tweak. 3. Hoxton East LTN The Hoxton East LTN was consulted but is behind the previously mentioned two in its implementation, with no changes on the ground yet. The previous administration promised a further period of monitoring/review and opportunity to improve the scheme. It is another partial scheme, a little like Chatsworth, that leaves many open internal displacement routes likely to suffer significant increases in traffic (such as Purcell Street). It leaves Hoxton Street itself partially open as a through-route so fails to address one of the key issues in the area.  The red lines show the ratrun through-routes left open by the Hoxton East LTN as currently planned Perhaps most seriously it also fails to reduce traffic on one of the Borough’s busiest cycle routes (Cycleway 1 at Whitmore Road), and may even make traffic there worse.
Providing safe high quality cycling routes is critical to reducing traffic and this section is uncomfortable, unsafe and urgently in need of traffic reduction. A consultation was held which showed strong popular support for traffic reduction in Hoxton, despite not reaching a very representative sample of the local population (the consultation did not reflect the age profile of Hoxton and was disproportionately completed by those who use a car as their primary transport). As with other schemes there is a small but very vocal opposition. How the Council reacts to this will be a key test of its commitment to meet a 30% traffic reduction target. To meet this target, bold action is required. Low Traffic Hackney view: The LTN can be greatly improved with a single additional filter on Hoxton Street between Purcell Street and Stanway Street. Many people raised this issue in the consultation. Re-consult on an improved scheme that properly cuts all traffic routes in the area, and aim to get it implemented within a year. Just like its sister Hoxton West LTN, it will become uncontroversial in time. This area has extremely low car ownership (below 20% in some parts of the area), and high levels of deprivation, meaning action here is particularly urgent and a matter of basic environmental equality. 4. Make progress on Hackney’s main Roads For effective traffic reduction, main roads must not be an after-thought. Traffic in Hackney is not currently falling at anywhere like the pace needed to meet the manifesto 30% traffic reduction target. Bus speeds are not good enough. Too many main roads offer a poor pedestrian environment. Real and radical action is needed. Low Traffic Hackney view: There are easy wins on main roads, and some more difficult policies that mean working with other Boroughs and the Mayor of London. 56% of traffic on Hackney's main roads is local in-Borough traffic meaning effective policies to reduce local car use will significantly improve main roads here. Parking policies are a hugely under-used tool to control local traffic that uses Hackney’s main roads, and far more effort should go into using parking to reduce local car ownership and use. We would like to see a strategy to reduce parking and convert it to more sustainable uses, parking permit caps and waiting lists. The council can make quick progress on main road pedestrian crossings, accessible side road cross-overs, cycle lanes, bus gate timings and removing parking in bus lanes. One example is the planned Queensbridge Road cycle lane which is a disappointing scheme that gives up at bus stops and leaves gaps in the protection. Improving this is an easy win for a key main road. Fast, visible progress is needed. The Green manifesto promised an SUV charge, which we fully support but we suspect may take time and complex work with TfL and the Mayor of London to achieve. Don’t wait for this to make other changes to reduce traffic on main roads. 5. Fix poor enforcement Many of Hackney’s LTN filters are being ignored and left unenforced whilst 57% of the school streets have no permanent enforcement at all. This should be an easy win to deliver quick change on the ground. Low Traffic Hackney view: Invest in ANPR cameras for all major filters and every school street. Use fire gates for minor filters where emergency services allow; in the long run they are more resilient and less controversial than enforcement that results in fines. Invest in additional mobile enforcement camera cars for locations that can’t sustain fixed cameras. Do it fast and do it early Overall our message to the new Council administration is to work fast on traffic reduction and front-load it as much as possible to the beginning of their term. The last administration made most progress at the very end of their term when it was too late to see results. If there is one lesson on difficult and controversial traffic reduction measures it is: ‘Do it fast and do it early’. On improving listening The Green Party promised to listen better to all groups and this is something we support in principle, with the caveat that meaningful change is difficult and it is never possible to satisfy everyone. Consultations have not been representative, and have not heard from excluded groups and people who benefit most from schemes. We also recognise traffic reduction measures can be difficult for some people, and some groups may require adaptations and extra support. There is no way to avoid strong opposition to traffic reduction schemes from a vocal minority, but very few people will want to go back 3 years down the line. 82% of voters in the Mayoral election chose to vote for parties that support active travel and traffic reduction, with under 14% choosing parties that opposed LTNs. The Green Party manifesto was unusually detailed on traffic reduction. There is now an extremely strong democratic mandate to make radical changes quickly here and we hope Hackney Green Party plans to make good use of it. Best of luck to the incoming administration, and we in Low Traffic Hackney are here to support any work to reduce traffic and car-dominance in Hackney, and to hold politicians to account on their promises. If you haven't already, sign up to our mailing list here. Congratulations to Hackney Green Party on winning the recent Council election with a landslide. This means Hackney is now run by the Greens... In this blog post we dive into their manifesto to analyse their vision and ambition, and what they promised to deliver. To keep it clear, we’ve grouped items into four areas: the overall vision, the concrete deliverables, the more vague ambitions which may or may not be delivered, and things we feel are missing. Worth noting that the good news from the elections is that over 83% of votes in the Mayoral election were for parties - Labour and Greens - that very clearly support traffic reduction and active travel. The anti-LTN vote - Tory and Reform - was under 14%. So from the election we can say with confidence that the vast majority of people who voted, did so for a mayor who actively supports our aims.  The new Green mayor of Hackney, Zoe Garbett Green vision and overall objectives
There's no doubt that the Greens put significant time and effort into the transport chapter of their manifesto, and take the subject seriously. Their overall vision and objectives are essentially pretty much in line with what Low Traffic Hackney stands for, right down to the shared objective of reducing miles driven in Hackney by 30% by 2030. 😃 The key line from their vision is this: "Prioritise safe, reliable, affordable options that enable people to move around Hackney without needing to own a car. A Green-led Hackney Council will be ambitious on climate, ecology and air quality, and will take bold action to reduce traffic, decarbonise our transport system and tackle air pollution in Hackney and beyond." This is, in short, brilliant to see. We love it. Additionally the Greens support Vision Zero, which means no-one killed or seriously injured on our streets by 2041 (bear in mind that 117 people in Hackney were killed or seriously injured in 2024, the last year we have data for). They acknowledge that public transport needs to improve, and that there are too many large and dangerous SUVs on our roads. The concrete promises If we remove anything that talks about "investigating" or "seek funding for" or "lobby for" or "work with X" (i.e. anything which is not a promise, but a less-than-concrete ambition) the list of things we can expect is significantly shorter. These are items where there is a tangible deliverable, something where we can easily measure success. These are the hard promises:
All of these promises are, in principle, excellent, and we fully support them. We are looking forward to seeing the detail on some of these such as the Kerbside and Parking Strategy and cycle implementation plan. We will, of course, monitor progress on these and regularly remind the council about them. The more vague ambitions There are however many points in the manifesto which could be categorised as "ambitious but potentially more difficult to achieve”. These include:
Comment: The Road Safety Premium is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Without it there’s very little in the manifesto to solve Hackney’s main roads problem. The big question is: how achievable is this in practice? Our view is that it's a great ambition, but not likely to be delivered within the next four years, unless it becomes an urgent priority for the Mayor Of London. We urge the Greens to see our main roads recommendations and deliver these as fast as possible Anything which involves “negotiation” (better dockless bike contracts), “demands” (driverless car regulation), “lobbying” (road charging), “working with” (car share clubs, bus priority measures and bus lanes becoming 24/7) or “investigation” (workplace parking levies) are not solely within the control of the Council at all. They are fantastic ambitions, but how realistic are they? The Road Safety Premium is a key point for the Greens, and we’d love to see it implemented, but we’re not holding our breath. Prove us wrong, please! What was missing? The biggest omission is the lack of a plan for the roll-out of further LTNs or Liveable Neighbourhoods. We know that Dalston and Hoxton were agreed by the previous Labour council but what about the Cazenove LTN, or Stamford Hill West, for example? Of course not every decision will be in a manifesto and we hope the Greens have plans to expand LTNs in Hackney. On Chatsworth Road, the promise to “improve” the scheme and potentially to “expand exemptions” may not be positive. Expanding exemptions may keep a tiny number of local residents who drive happy, but they undermine the point and success of bus-gates and filters, and maintain the status quo which is harmful to the majority who don’t drive. There was nothing about reducing theft of Blue Badges to ensure they are protected for those that need them. What about reducing the problem of idling which again is a significant issue for air pollution in our borough. What about proper enforcement of the 20mph speed limit which could have a massive impact on road safety if adhered to? Conclusion Hackney Green’s ambition is excellent. The concrete deliverables are great. The more vague ambitions are exactly that, and nothing more. We hope the missing LTN plans don't mean a lack of ambition to expand liveable streets in Hackney. Low Traffic Hackney will work as closely as we can with the new Green council. We will continue to counter misinformation and disinformation. We will regularly remind the council of what they promised, and we will offer alternatives if we believe their solutions are not in the interests of the majority of our borough. Equally, we wish Zoe Garbett and her team luck and congratulations, and an offer of always being here to help where we can.  “General Election, Polling Stations” by Catholic Church England and Wales, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 This Thursday 7th May, Hackney goes to the polls to elect ward councillors across the borough. Unlike most boroughs, Hackney will also choose an elected mayor – an important post with responsibility for appointing cabinet members, and setting a leadership agenda for the next four years.
To date, three of the parties that are standing candidates have published manifestos: Labour, the Green Party, and the Hackney Independent Socialist Collective (HISC). We've trawled through them to see what they're offering voters on sustainable transport and traffic reduction. We’ve also met with all three parties privately to discuss their plans and Labour and the Green Party attended our joint Mayoral Hustings with Hackney Cycling Campaign and Living Streets. Following the summary, there’s a detailed breakdown on what the manifestos tell us on each area. Summary Labour Labour's manifesto gives us very little on transport. Cycle hangars and school streets get a supportive mention, but references to cycling and public transport are fleeting, and several key topics – LTNs, parking, main roads and traffic reduction in general – aren't mentioned at all. On the basis of the manifesto, we are left looking elsewhere for clues to Labour's intentions if elected. They have told us that we should look to their record and that detailed plans will be contained in an upcoming transport strategy. They have said two other LTNs that were due to be delivered last year (Dalston and Hoxton) will go ahead after the election. Greens The Green Party manifesto has the fullest set of transport policy proposals, many of which align with low-traffic campaigners' asks. Weight-based charges for parking, freeing up bus lanes, and improving the pedestrian crossing experience are all welcome and achievable. Other policies such as a workplace parking levy and 'Road Safety Premium' show a high level of ambition, although it's not clear if they could be implemented. We are concerned that expanding exemptions for LTNs has the potential to dilute schemes' effectiveness, and there is nothing on the future LTN rollout, but the commitment not to remove existing LTNs is reassuring. HISC Of the three manifestos, this one is the most hostile to the LTN programme, with the clearest commitment to pausing future schemes, reviewing current ones, and widening the net of exemptions. The pledge to remove the bus gate on Chatsworth Road is explicit. When we met HISC, candidates had differing views on traffic reduction policies, with some more supportive than others. While manifesto policies on cycling and public transport show a desire to improve residents' experience of moving around the borough, there is no realistic mitigation on offer for the increase of traffic that removing LTNs would bring to currently quiet roads. Other parties Although they haven't published manifestos, the Conservative and Reform mayoral candidates have both stated their intention to scrap LTNs. Hackney Lib Dems also nod to reviewing some 'badly performing' LTNs. You can read what the Labour, Green and Conservative mayoral candidates committed to at the Hackney Cycling Campaign hustings here. Overall coverage Labour There is no dedicated section on transport in the Labour Manifesto. Instead, transport policies mostly appear in the section on environment, with a few mentions under 'Tackling the climate crisis'. Greens The Greens' manifesto has a chapter on transport titled 'Moving Around Hackney'. HISC The HISC manifesto has a section on transport. An introductory note states that it was amended on 26 April 2026 following 'consultation with residents and within the party'. General principles Labour The top line in Labour's manifesto is a pledge to continue to make streets safe and accessible for residents, support walking and wheeling, and reduce mobility challenges. Labour have told us their transport policy will largely be a continuation of their actions in Office. Greens Greens spell out their transport goals as prioritising safe, reliable, affordable options that enable people to move around Hackney without needing to own a car. HISC HISC underline the need for Hackney residents to be able to travel affordably, safely, quickly and without stress, and to breathe cleaner air. Networks Labour Labour commit to a review of cycling and walking networks. Greens Greens will prioritise protected and fully accessible cycle lanes, and a network of low traffic streets. They will also publish an implementation plan for a cycle network that puts all Hackney residents within 400m of a high-quality cycle route. HISC If elected, HISC will advocate for more cycle routes. School streets Labour Labour commit to increasing school streets enforcement. Greens A Green-lead council will create school streets for all eligible primary and secondary schools, as well as introduce them for colleges. HISC The HISC manifesto notes that school streets have been a positive step towards calmer areas for families to walk and cycle. Kerbside use Labour Labour will look at ways to use the kerbside more effectively, including Blue Badge and car club parking, bike hire and storage, EV charging, and pedestrian infrastructure. Greens The Green manifesto proposes a kerbside and parking strategy, mentioning biodiversity, accessibility, seating and safer crossings as desired outcomes. HISC No mention in the manifesto. Road safety Labour The Labour manifesto says that streets will continue to be made safe for residents. Greens The Green Party notes that Hackney is not on track to meet mayoral Vision Zero target of zero road deaths by 2041, and calls for radical action to tackle road danger. HISC Responding to residents' safety concerns, HISC have campaigned to enact a ban on HGVs on Victoria Park Road. Pedestrian provision Labour Safer crossings are mentioned as an example of better use of the kerbside. Greens The Green manifesto pledges to work with TfL to ensure pedestrian crossings every 100 metres, prioritising routes to key destinations such as schools and hospitals. It also proposes reprogramming timings on standalone crossings to allow pedestrians an instant green light. HISC No mention in the manifesto. Main roads Labour No mention in the manifesto. Labour started ‘deliberative engagement sessions’ about improving main roads in 2025 and produced an initial report. Greens Green policy is to reduce bottlenecks by removing parking on main roads, and to fast-track delivery of the Main Roads Strategy which the current administration is currently working on. HISC HISC cite concerns that some traffic restrictions have exacerbated pollution and congestion on main roads. Cycle parking Labour Labour point to the installation of over 1000 cycle hangars during their last administration, and pledge to continue rolling out more. Cargo bike parking is given as an example of sustainable kerbside use that would be pursued. Greens The Greens commit to seek funding to 'significantly increase' cycle hangar provision. HISC HISC councillors would advocate for more cycle hangars if elected. Dockless and ebikes Labour Dockless bike hire is listed as an example of favoured kerbside use. Greens Green policy is to renegotiate deals with dockless bike hire providers, with the aim of improving affordability and reducing pavement clutter. They will also push for expanded adoption of e-cargo bikes. HISC HISC policy is to push for a consultation on the use of ebikes in Hackney's parks. Traffic reduction Labour No mention in the manifesto. Greens The manifesto aims to reduce miles driven on Hackney roads by 30% by by 2030. In order to achieve this, the party proposes a 'Road Safety Premium' – a scheme that would apparently target oversized private vehicles driven into Hackney from outside the borough with a charge. HISC HISC's manifesto notes that 40% of traffic in the borough is non-local, and pledges to reduce through traffic. Car clubs Labour Car-sharing is one of the sustainable kerbside uses mentioned in the Labour manifesto. Greens The Green manifesto pledges to work with TfL and neighbouring boroughs to develop a system of accessible car club vehicles. HISC No mention in the manifesto. Parking restrictions Labour No mention in the manifesto. Hackney currently has 100% controlled parking zones, and under Labour a new parking strategy with emissions-based permit prices was introduced. Greens Recognising the increased risk of serious injury and additional wear and tear caused by SUVs, the Green Party manifesto proposes a new parking permit price structure based on vehicle size as well as emissions. The manifesto also commits to investigate a workplace parking levy that would charge employers who provide staff parking places. HISC No mention in the manifesto. Public transport Labour Labour pledge to support TfL in keeping public transport functioning smoothly. Greens Greens will lobby for new bus lanes, with 24-hour operations and removed parking. The manifesto also commits to lobbying the Mayor of London for a pilot of free public transport. HISC HISC call for strategies to improve areas of poor public transport provision, and will campaign for free public transport. In aid of this, they pledge to support a 2024 proposal from the Mayor of London to create a publicly owned bus company. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Labour No mention in the manifesto. At the hustings Labour told us they are supportive of LTNs, and plan to continue the programme. They have implemented several LTNs across the borough since 2020 and consulted on one in Dalston, with future plans for one in Hoxton. Greens Greens draw a distinction between measures that have worked well, and those that have not yet delivered fair outcomes everywhere. They commit not to scrap existing schemes, citing the risk of increased road danger, but promise decisions taken on a case-by-case basis. They propose an expanded system of exemptions from LTN restrictions for various groups of residents. The Chatsworth Road Liveable Neighbourhood scheme is singled out as requiring improvement, with options including expanded exemptions and amended filter locations/hours on the table. HISC HISC also target the Chatsworth Road Liveable Neighbourhood scheme, calling for the immediate suspension of the bus gate. They will pause the rollout any other LTNs currently under way, and carry out an 'Equality Impact Assessment' of existing LTNs. They will expand the system of exemptions, citing health conditions and livelihoods as grounds for exemption. We recently wrote a blogpost addressing those who oppose low traffic neighbourhoods from the perspective of wanting to ‘open our roads’ to prioritise the convenience and freedom to drive. But another group of opponents are more likely to say they support lower traffic in principle ‘...but just not like this’. Evidence should matter to this group, because if you genuinely believe in reducing traffic harms, then presumably you support means that work over those that don’t. Of course there is a reason Councils are putting in LTNs to reduce traffic and pollution, rather than opening up roads: The evidence of significant benefits is now clear and getting clearer with every passing year. So why does this topic still seem so contentious? Accepting evidence is tied to beliefs and values One reason is people struggle to feel normal behaviour (like driving to get around) is a problem, and it is difficult to accept any evidence that contradicts our values and preconceptions. It is understandable to want lower traffic in theory without downsides in practice, and if you believe LTNs are unfair, cause more pollution, or just move traffic around, then you are much less likely to accept evidence which shows these claims are untrue, no matter how much effort and expertise has gone into producing it.  Image: Jono Hey https://sketchplanations.com Denial and misinformation Another problem is the industry of active denial and misinformation that has developed around different anti-LTN movements. This commonly includes:
Keep an eye out for anti-LTN individuals, journalists and groups using these tactics, and you will soon start to see them everywhere. What is weak evidence? So how can you tell what is valid from what isn’t? It helps to start by thinking about what evidence is, and how to judge its worth. Not all evidence is equal! At the lowest end of value are anecdotes, or people’s stories as to how they have been affected by a change. Anecdotal evidence can be very useful to understand possible effects, or how some people feel, but the fact some people may be really angry or happy about something is not an indicator of the strength of an argument. Sometimes politicians call anecdocal evidence 'lived experience'. It is common to hear that decision makers only need listen better to people's lived experience, and act accordingly, and better decisions would be made. But this ignores complex realities. Whose lived experience? Are these experiences representative? Do selected perceptions match reality? Unfortunately this anecdotal evidence, no matter how strongly expressed, tells us very little about true vs perceived impacts, how extensive a problem or benefit is, how to balance competing priorities, or how a policy impacts at a population level. This is not about disbelieving people, everyone's experience and perception has validity, but about finding ways of objectively weighing up competing and often contradictory perceptions, views and stories. Related weak evidence sources are articles in the press and self-published campaigns and websites (…yes even ours! Don’t just take our word for it, always read the original sources). Press articles and campaign groups often like to tell an engaging story, or quote opinions as facts with little regard for scientific accuracy. How the press monetises misinformation and anger The unspoken aim of many commercial press stories is to act as ‘rage-bait’ which intentionally sows division and enrages both sides of a debate to increase clicks, social media shares, engagement and advertising revenues.  Press ‘rage-bait’ and opinion pieces can use anecdotal quotes or fears falsely presented as facts, outrageous claims based on dodgy speculative data, or make inaccurate or inflammatory statements with little or no scientific basis. Anecdotes and press articles can be highly persuasive, and can seem very convincing, but these are not valid sources of evidence! Real evidence Above these in the hierarchy of value are data and evaluation reports from institutions like Councils or Transport Authorities. Their data will have been collected and compiled by people with expertise and is more likely to accurately represent impacts. However, it may be snapshots in time, limited in scope or analysis, and is not ‘peer-reviewed’ by other experts. To weigh up population level impacts to decide whether a policy is a good one, ideally you need more rigorous analysis and scientific studies which look at a lot of data across wider areas to be able to judge impacts. This type of evidence is the top of the hierarchy of value and helps to support policy decisions. It is increasingly strong evidence from these types of scientific studies that have encouraged Councils to install LTNs. It isn't a conspiracy; they don't hate drivers, they see and take impacts seriously. They're acting rationally to reduce real harms and inequalities. What about critiques of the published evidence that say it is all ‘flawed’? It is relatively easy to criticise and find fault with any real-world study as they are, by nature, imperfect. The real world is complicated, and traffic is influenced by many factors. Studies are usually open about uncertainties and limitations. Some journalists and campaigners have made a name for themselves presenting every limitation or uncertainty as a ‘gotcha’ moment that disproves the whole study. Uncertainties or limitations must be considered but they don’t in themselves disprove conclusions. It is also important to look at the weight of evidence and not just one source. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. There are dozens of detailed scientific studies that support myriad benefits of LTNs and few if any that come to opposing conclusions. It is just not credible that these are all so ‘flawed’ or ‘biased’ as to be discounted whilst unqualified journalists with an axe to grind somehow know better. Groups which attack every positive study as ‘flawed’ are not open to accepting findings which challenge their values and beliefs. Changing minds So, if you’re confronted by people arguing the facts of LTNs, or groups putting out ‘factsheets’ without convincing references, ask them for their receipts! What is the real evidence behind their views? If the answer is only a context-free screenshot of some traffic data, a link to a press article, a campaign video, or individual stories, then things are unlikely to be as they claim. Decisions around managing traffic are politically difficult and have complicated benefits and impacts. At Low Traffic Hackney we want politicians and decision makers to be guided by the best available evidence, so they make decisions with the best possible results. But maybe advocates for lower traffic and safer streets also need to learn from the tactics of opponents and get better at telling stories too, because history suggests hard evidence is not always enough to change minds. 20/4/2026 Active Travel hustings April 2026Low Traffic Hackney joined forces with Hackney Cycling Campaign and Hackney Living Streets to hold Active Travel election hustings for the mayoral election in May 2026. Three candidates accepted our invite: Caroline Woodley, the current Labour mayor, Zoe Garbett from the Green Party, and Tareke Gregg from the Conservative Party. We presented the three candidates with a set of five elections "asks" and asked if they supported them, or not. Here are the five asks and the responses from the mayoral candidates: 1. Enable all children to safely walk and cycle to every primary and secondary school in Hackney There should be school streets (which 20,000 students currently benefit from, a little over half), filters, protected cycle lanes on main roads, or safe junctions for every primary and secondary school in Hackney by 2030. School streets already delivered without enforcement measures should be upgraded. Result: all candidates put their hands up to support this. 2. Continue to roll out low-traffic neighbourhoods, and connect gateways between them to maximise their potential for safe cycling, walking and wheeling We wish to see the council accelerate rollout of area-wide traffic reduction schemes, so the benefits can be shared across the whole of the borough. Existing schemes with time-based restrictions (e.g. Lansdowne Drive, and Chatsworth Road) should be made operational 24/7. Safety measures cannot only be operational just some of the time. To maximise the benefits of these low traffic areas, gateways should be installed across boundary roads to allow safe cycling, walking and wheeling between them. Result: Labour and Green candidates support this. The Conservative candidate does not 3. Reduce use of kerbside space for private car parking by 10% by 2030, and convert to more sustainable uses The council should adopt a formal strategy for reducing the use of kerbside space for private car parking, and instead use this valuable and limited resource for more sustainable and beneficial uses. This should include (on every residential street) parking for dockless micromobility vehicles, cycle hangars, and also traditional bike parking. It would also free up space for greening, car club spaces, and could speed up bus services. Result: Labour and Green candidates support this. The Conservative candidate does not 4. Connect Hackney’s town centres by tackling dangerous roads and junctions Many of Hackney's town centres are not currently connected to their neighbouring town centres, either in Hackney or in adjacent boroughs. We ask that the council work towards filling these gaps by 2030, creating new cycleways formed of streets made suitable for cycling through traffic filtering, or the installation of new protected cycle tracks. TfL regularly produce a strategic analysis of London, identifying missing links in the cycle network. Building the missing Hackney routes shown in their 2023 analysis would achieve much of this ask. Result: all candidates put their hands up to support this. 5. Reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and explore piloting a road pricing scheme in Hackney Too often roads and junctions in Hackney are optimised for maximum throughput of motor vehicles, leaving pedestrians and cyclists marginalised. There seems to be a reluctance to rebalance this, with impacts to essential services (such as buses) from congestion often cited as a justification for avoiding change. As such, we want the council to commit to a target for reducing overall motor traffic in the borough, to address the real root cause of congestion. We also wish for the council to actively explore potential methods for distance-based charging of road users, particularly at times and locations when congestion is at its worst, to target this problem directly. Result: Labour and Green candidates support this. The Conservative candidate does not So, to summarize, Labour and Green candidates agreed to all five points. The Conservative candidate agreed only to points 1 and 4 but not the others One interesting point raised by Zoe Garbett during the evening was that she said there has to be a bigger emphasis on road safety when the council communicates plans for LTNs and traffic reduction. For info, the Labour manifesto for the May elections which barely mentions transport is here and the Green manifesto which contains significant detail on transport is here. In the interests of fairness, Labour can point to their record in office in terms of delivering traffic reduction and active travel improvements, so perhaps not surprising. Also, Labour have promised detail will come in their new transport strategy and you can see progress on this here . "Why are the council not listening to residents who hate LTNs?" "Local residents want to be able to drive but the council has implemented LTNs without asking us" These are things we've heard many times from some residents. But what's the truth about the popularity of LTNs in Hackney? Firstly, the most obvious point is that no-one likes traffic. Car drivers, bus drivers and passengers, cyclists, walkers, people who live in or near busy roads. Absolutely no-one likes traffic, and cutting traffic is universally popular - everyone wants less of it! And the fact is that to cut traffic, many of us need to drive less to reduce the number of cars on the roads, which is not rocket science, but worth stating. As the saying goes, if you’re stuck in traffic, remember that you are the traffic! In theory, given the universal unpopularity of traffic, you would think any changes to reduce traffic would be popular.... As far as we know, there's never been Hackney specific research done on this subject. Arguably this would be a good thing, but it doesn't exist yet. There is however some London-wide research, more on that in a minute. So, to get a picture of residents' views on LTNs we have to look at other evidence and draw conclusions. Not perfect, but there you go. How do Hackney residents get around? We know, from the last Census, that 65% of Hackney households have no access to a car. That's a borough wide figure, but if you dig down you'll see variations at ward level. So, in Shoreditch the figure is closer to 81% with no access to a car, and in Homerton North the figure is 52%. But in every ward in Hackney the majority of households have no access to a car. Now we know it’s not as simple as saying car owners dislike LTNs and vice versa. We know of plenty of Hackney residents who do own a car but fully support LTNs, and in fact have told us that the LTNs have helped them reduce the number of car trips they make, either because it's just less convenient to drive, or because it's more pleasant and safe to walk or cycle. But knowing that the vast majority of Hackney residents do not have access to a car, it does shine a light on the “open back our roads” mentality, in terms of just how representative they are in reality.  If we look at how residents travel around the borough, we get an even more extreme view of things. 52% of all trips in Hackney are by foot, 15.5% by bus, and 8% by bike, meaning 87% of resident trips are made by walking, cycling or bus. Only 8.5% of resident trips are by car. If you're travelling around Hackney by foot or bike, we can safely assume your journey will be more pleasant, safe and quicker if there are lots of LTNs around. Buses are more complicated, as they tend to use main roads, and our main roads are still too busy with private vehicles, and bus priority measures are not strong enough yet. However, there are numerous bus routes that are now significantly quicker due to surrounding LTNs, including Stoke Newington Church St and Albion Road, Amhurst Road, Chatsworth Road, Whiston Road and Richmond Road. Overall, given how residents travel, which is overwhelmingly NOT by car, it's a safe assumption that the benefits of LTNs easily outweigh any negatives for most people, making them something people generally approve of. The argument that LTNs make main roads busier by moving traffic from small side roads onto main roads is covered in our blog post on LTNs and wealth. Elections Looking at more hard data, we have the results of the last council and Mayoral elections in 2022. Why is this important? Because Hackney council implemented many LTNs during and straight after Covid in 2020 and 2021. If residents didn't like the new LTNs they would have voted against Labour and for parties which opposed any road filters at the next local elections. That includes the Hackney Independents who were set up to oppose recent LTNs and the Conservatives. Labour won 50 of the 57 ward seats up for grabs with 59% of the vote, the Greens won 2 and the Conservatives held 5 seats they already had with 10% of the vote. Most notably, Hackney Independents, including some very vocal anti-LTN campaigners, won zero seats with just over 1% of the vote. The only assumption we can draw is that LTNs are overwhelmingly popular with people who voted in the 2022 local elections. This is, as they say, democracy in action. At the same election in 2022, the Labour Mayoral candidate Philip Glanville, an active supporter of traffic reduction schemes and better cycling infrastructure, won with 59% of the votes. The Conservative candidate who ran on an anti-LTN platform, received 13.4% of the votes. The following year after Philip Glanville resigned, Caroline Woodley (Labour) won the mayoral by-election with 50% of the vote, followed by the pro-LTN Green candidate Zoe Garbett with 24%. The anti-LTN Conservative candidate received just 13.6% of the vote. Again, the votes for Hackney mayor strongly suggest residents like traffic reduction measures such as LTNs. What does all that mean? It shows, quite unambiguously, that following the introduction of many LTNs during the Covid years, Hackney residents voted very clearly for candidates who supported LTNs, and the candidates standing against LTNs performed extremely poorly. Like, really badly. Research In 2023 a large opinion research and polling company (Redfield and Wilton Strategies) carried out London specific polling to gauge opinion on transport policies including ULEZ and LTNs. Professional polling is important because unlike self-selecting consultations, it is designed so that respondents reflect the views and demographics of the population as a whole. They concluded that 58% of respondents support LTNs while only 17% were opposed to them.   Rishi Sunak commissioned one piece of nationwide research in theory to support his pro-driver campaign. The 2024 DfT report, which Sunak had hoped would show how unpopular LTNs were, actually showed that in London 53% supported them, against 26% who didn't. The report concluded: “The available evidence from the UK indicates that LTNs are effective in achieving outcomes of reducing traffic volumes within their zones while adverse impacts on boundary roads appear to be limited” and crucially: “There appears to be limited evidence of adverse impacts on boundary roads, but residents are more likely than not to think that schemes have added traffic congestion and queues to these nearby roads.”  Research by Climate Barometer, which tracks opinion on climate policy, shows that LTNs are in fact more popular with local residents than politicians think they are. This applies to climate change policies in general, but specifically on LTNs many politicians have a perception which is far from reality, suggesting they should be bolder with such policies, not running scared of a vocal minority of voters.
Consultations Some residents point at specific LTN consultations and think that proves their unpopularity. The big problem with this way of thinking is that consultations are self-selecting, meaning only those who feel strongly complete them. In every Hackney consultation we have seen car drivers and older people are very over represented, and younger people are extremely under represented. For example see our recent blogpost on the Hoxton LTN consultation. Most people just don't bother filling in consultations, meaning they tend to attract vocal minorities with an axe to grind. People who feel they have something tangible to lose are naturally more motivated than people who are being asked to imagine abstract future benefits that they often haven't ever actually experienced This obviously skews the results. Consultations are not "polls" or "referendums", they are a basic way of getting feedback from some self selecting residents. The council has thankfully made progress on engaging better with residents rather than just using consultations. Whichever approach the council takes to “listening to residents”, it's important to remember that listening is not the same as doing exactly what one particular group wants. It’s often said that “the council didn’t listen to me when I completed the consultation” as if their voice was the only one that counts. Clearly, that’s not the case. The size of the opposition As mentioned, there’s a vocal group of residents who oppose LTNs and any restrictions on the right to drive. But just how big is this group? Well, its clearly impossible to get accurate numbers, but there is some data available. The late 2025 petition against LTNs attracted 1144 signatures. Given there are about 260,000 residents living in Hackney, the number who signed the petition is 0.4% of the population. Less than half of one percent. Looking at the “Open Back Our Roads” protests outside the town hall in early 2026, MyLondon reported “dozens” of protestors. Whilst the pro-car Hackney Citizen reported “several hundred” protested outside the town hall, although that number is clearly a guess and is an over-estimate from what we observed. The much publicised “Open Back Our Roads” WhatsApp group currently has a total of 40 members. On Facebook the well publicised “Horrendous Hackney Road Closures” group, running since 2020, has a total of just over 7,000 members. The group contains many members who don't actually live in the Borough at all, but even if they were all residents that would still only amount to 2.8% of Hackney’s population. It's easy to see how members of that group could assume that everyone feels the same about LTNs, but they forget that only a tiny percent of Hackney residents are in the group. Conclusion Looking at the available evidence, it's impossible not to conclude that LTNs in Hackney are popular with the majority of residents. Yes, there is a very clear (and vocal) minority who oppose them, but it's important to recognise that this group is not representative of the vast majority of people who live in Hackney. There are no electoral dividends to gain by opposing LTNs, but plenty of supporters that could be put off by this. In the run up to the May local elections, all candidates and parties would be sensible to recognise this. |
