No abstract

In this article we examine equity in new active travel infrastructure in London, UK. We focus on Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes (LTNs) introduced during Covid-19. These mainly involve ‘modal filters’ that restrict through motor traffic from residential streets. Such approaches to traffic management are traditional in the Netherlands, but relatively new in London and other global cities such as Barcelona. LTNs are often controversial, with one criticism being that they are implemented in affluent areas and hence benefit richer residents. London represents an excellent opportunity to investigate the extent to which these rapidly introduced schemes have so far been equitably distributed.We focused on LTNs introduced between March and September 2020 and still present at the end of October 2020. Having generated datasets representing these new LTN locations and their boundary roads, we matched these to Output Areas (OAs, administrative areas containing around 300 residents). We then examined the extent to which LTN implementation was associated with age, ethnicity, disability, employment and car ownership (Census 2011) and small-area deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019). We estimated that 3.7% of all Londoners live inside a new LTN, and 8.8% live within 500m walking distance of a new modal filter. Across London as a whole, people in the most deprived quarter of OAs were 2.7 times more likely to live in or near a new LTN, compared to Londoners in the least deprived quarter. While overall Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people were slightly more likely than White Londoners to live in a new LTN, this varied by ethnic group. Specifically, Black Londoners were somewhat more likely, and Asian Londoners somewhat less likely than White people to live in or near a new LTN. Car-free households were more likely to live in or near a new LTN. Within London’s districts – which lead the implementation of LTNs - there was wide variation, with people in more deprived areas and/or ethnic minorities more likely to live in an LTN in some districts, less likely in others. In the median (‘typical’) district, people in more deprived areas were more likely to live in an LTN than people in less deprived areas, suggesting that, on average, individual districts have prioritised their more deprived areas. However, in the median district, BAME residents were slightly less likely to live in an LTN than White residents. Finally, at the micro level, residents living in LTNs were demographically similar to neighbours living in OAs that touched an LTN boundary road. We conclude that LTN implementation has been broadly equitable at the city level and at the micro level, but not always at the district level. Such metrics should be used in policy and research to monitor and improve the equity of active travel interventions.

Researchers in urban planning are frequently motivated by the desire to facilitate positive social change. In seeking better ways to effect change, the researcher becomes an activist by engaging with social and environmental issues in a meaningful way to solve a problem. It is also often at this nexus where practice and academia meet, where the researcher adopts an activist role. In this paper we argue that activist research requires researchers to place themselves in one of two dominant positionalities or engagement positions: the insider or the outsider, as they join efforts with their research participants and activities. Using four case examples from our own research, we discuss how each positionality influences the production of new knowledge in both practice and theory. We reflect on challenges faced by early-career activist researchers in adopting activist research approaches, highlighting implications for undertaking this type of research in urban planning, and the need for a rethink from current discourses to set a path for a more hopeful future.