Do LTNs favour rich people?

Groups opposed to LTNs sometimes like to claim they benefit rich people on side streets whilst poor people on main roads suffer.  It’s a snappy soundbite, but is there any truth to it? We run through the arguments, and the reality, below:

​Myth 1: Poor and working class residents are more likely to use cars so they are more affected by road restrictions

Not True! Car ownership is heavily weighted towards richer groups.  

Data from the 2021 census shows of all regions across England and Wales, London has the highest proportion of households with no cars or vans (42%).  However, when you look at the poorest households, even fewer own cars.

​Household car ownership rises with household income, with around a quarter of households with an income under £15,000 having access to a car, compared to almost three quarters (73%) of households with an income over £75,000.  London residents with access to a car are disproportionately aged between 45 and 64, in full-time employment or retired, and living in high income households.   

Of course these figures are London-wide and include the impact of greater car dependency in Outer London.  In all areas of Hackney, car ownership across all income groups is much lower, with 65% of Hackney households having no access to a car.  In some areas of the Borough such as Shoreditch, under 20% of all households have a car, meaning car ownership amongst the poorest people here amounts to a very tiny proportion of the population.

The truth is cars are expensive! It is estimated that it costs about £3500 per year to run a car in Hackney. Poorer people are less likely to use cars, not more likely. 

Tfl Image - Cost of running a car. Available at previous link. Their graphic doesn't include the annual cost of depreciation or the original cost of buying a vehicle

People in lowest income groups are far more likely to be on the night bus to work, earning a living on a bicycle, or walking to get around.  

However as with all groups in society, some poorer residents do still own and use cars for a variety of reasons.  Policies which prioritise alternatives to car use are difficult and do involve compromises and adjustment. But existing conditions are incredibly harmful, and more deprived groups are disproportionately affected by these road harms. 

The Council should be concentrating on reducing harms and inequalities, and helping behaviour change by opening up viable alternatives such as safe car-free routes to school which save families money and time.
​
All groups benefit from and deserve safe, pollution-free and healthy streets.  It just suits some campaign groups and better off people who use cars to pretend LTNs ‘punish the poor’ in order to present more socially acceptable ways to oppose the policy.
​

Myth 2: LTNs only cover the rich areas

Not True! In Hackney LTNs cover and strongly benefit more deprived areas. 

The first point here is that where LTNs are implemented is a matter of policy that is largely separate from whether or not they work.  If LTNs are only implemented in rich areas, they will be unfair.  This is an argument for ensuring fairly implemented LTNs, not no LTNs. 

But this is absolutely not what has happened in Hackney anyway, where the Council has put LTNs across many of the most deprived parts of the Borough. In fact research has shown Hackney’s LTNs are the most socially equal in London, covering areas which are less affluent and more ethnically diverse.

It is also important to understand the majority of Hackney’s social housing estates were originally designed, or have long since been converted into LTNs to prevent through-traffic. This is not a social injustice, it is just a sensible design to minimise harms. Evidence shows extending this has massive benefits for everyone.

Photos showing 'fire gates' which have been used for decades to exclude through traffic from Hackney's housing estates and make them LTNs

Myth 3: LTNs only benefit middle class people. Poorer people live on main roads. They push pollution to main roads.

Not True! There is minimal difference in the population on main roads and minor roads in inner London. Pollution on main roads has fallen. Road harms such as air pollution and road danger disproportionately affect poorer people and those in deprivation. Reducing harms disproportionately benefits those groups.

Evidence shows around 90% of all groups in inner London live off main roads with around 10% of all groups on them.  There is minimal difference in the ethnic mix on or off main roads here. 
 
Pollution on main roads in Hackney has fallen rapidly since recent LTNs were introduced, and is continuing to fall.  Wider evidence shows LTNs reduce air pollution both within and on boundary roads.

Whilst we know well designed LTNs don’t have unequal impacts, existing road harms most certainly do.  Both road casualties and exposure to air pollution are strongly linked to deprivation and so targeting LTNs to more deprived areas can have huge public health benefits.
​

In conclusion:
​
LTNs are necessary to reduce pollution, to reduce road danger, to enable healthy active travel and to move towards more sustainable climate-safe cities. 

They are socially equitable because the gains disproportionately benefit poorer people who are suffering from the impacts of existing road harms whilst the restrictions are more likely to be felt by more affluent groups disproportionately responsible for creating those harms.

Whilst any change may be difficult for some people, this has to be considered in light of the very significant harms of the status quo. 

​Doing nothing, or prioritising less effective policies, is not a socially equal or cost-free option! It is just supporting and sustaining existing inequalities.