LATEST
NEWS
10 myths about the Leith Low Traffic Neighbourhood
Ross Murray, Secretary, Liveable Leith
17 February 2025
They say that a lie has travelled halfway around the world before the truth has even got its boots on. Nowhere is that more true than in discussion about low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) also known as liveable neighbourhoods, where streets are made safer by discouraging motor traffic. Myths and disinformation seems to abound about these modest measures to create safer streets. Here are 10 of the myths that are doing the rounds about the Leith LTN, and in each case an outline of the actual facts.
1) The low-traffic neighbourhood is unpopular
It might be true that amongst the people you speak to, nobody voices support for the LTN. There could be a reason for that, and it’s not the one you think. Research by Professor Adrian Davis of Napier University has found that people who tend to support measures to introduce safer streets think they’re in a minority even when they are in the majority. He calls this the pluralistic paradox. As a result, in discussions of the issue, they tend to stay silent.
In Leith, surveys have consistently shown support for the LTN. The council commissioned nine separate market research surveys, in three waves, conducted in 2022, Spring 2024 and Autumn 2024. They showed support for the LTN growing from 60% in the first wave to 74% in the final wave. Meanwhile 51% of those responding to the statutory consultation supported it, with 43% opposed and the remainder neutral. Even the community council’s own survey, which was very biased with leading questions, found more people in favour (40%) than opposed (34%) the LTN. Not a single survey has found more people against the LTN than in favour.
2) Those who support the LTN have divided the community
It is certainly true that those who oppose the LTN do so with great passion and sometimes with great anger. But as the answer to myth 1, above, shows, they are not in the majority. In fact, those who oppose safer streets tend to overstate the opposition to them. This is also reflected in evidence showing that the media tends to overstate opposition to LTNs. There’s also evidence that social media posts opposing LTNs also are highly likely to contain misinformation.
The aim of achieving safer streets gets near-universal approval - in Leith, with initial surveys for the project showing 80% of those surveyed supporting improvements to conditions for people walking in the area, and 75% supporting improvements for people cycling.
And there is evidence that car-dominated streets tend to have lower rates of social interaction amongst neighbours, so in fact, the safer streets which the LTN delivers are likely to reduce community division, not increase it.
3) It’s bad for personal safety and in particular women’s safety
In fact, research conducted in well-established low traffic neighbourhoods such as in Waltham Forest (London) records that the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease in total street crime and this effect increased with time after implementation. There was a larger reduction in violent crimes and no associated displacement to other areas.
By encouraging more use of our streets, more walking, wheeling, cycling and creating pleasant streets to spend time in, the concept of “eyes on the street” as neighbourhoods become places for people to be on the street not just pass through in vehicles.
Vehicle related crimes and related road traffic injuries are also shown to reduce with increased levels of road safety for trips by walking, cycling and driving.
4) It’s bad for disabled people
Across Scotland, disabled people are less likely to have a driving licence than non-disabled people by 55% compared to 77%, according to figures from Transport Scotland. The same study showed disabled people are less likely to have household access to a car (57% vs 80%). Meanwhile those whose condition reduces their ability to carry out day to day activities a lot are less likely to have a licence than those whose condition affects activities a little (44% compared to 59%).
In addition, a recent survey by Real, which is an organisation run by and for disabled people, found that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods brought both benefits and challenges to disabled people, but that disabled people overwhelmingly feel their position was being used by both sides of the debate without actively involving them in the discussion. In other words, they were not in favour or against LTNs, but they wanted to be involved from the very start in their design.
5) It’s undemocratic
It’s true that the eastern half of the LTN was introduced using an experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO) which doesn’t require public consultation before installation (though it does require consultation with emergency services and other key stakeholders). The western half was introduced using a standard Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which requires public consultation beforehand.
ETROs are a legitimate and commonly-used form of traffic order to introduce a trial road layout, which have existed since 1984. In Scotland, if a council uses them they must run a public consultation for the first six months that the changes are in place. They can remain in place for a maximum of 18 months, after which they must be removed or a decision made by the council to make them permanent.
The decision on whether or not to make the LTN permanent will be made on Tuesday 18 February by democratically-elected councillors who make up the TRO sub-committee. If more than one of those councillors oppose it being made permanent, there will be a vote.
Meanwhile, two of the three ward councillors for Leith, Adam Nols-McVey and Chas Booth, specifically pledged to support the implementation of the LTN if elected in the 2022 local authority election. Between them they received nearly 5,000 votes, or 58% of first preferences. The two candidates who specifically pledged to scrap the LTN, Teresa Perchard and Andy Mackenzie, received less than 15% of first preference votes. There is a clear and unequivocal democratic mandate to deliver the LTN in Leith.
6) There was no consultation
As mentioned in answer to myth 1 above, there have been nine separate market research exercises carried out by the council, as well as the statutory 6-month consultation period at the start of the experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO). In addition to this, the community council carried out their own survey, which received 364 responses.
The sample sizes in the council-commissioned research was as follows:
Wave 1 (2022) - 318 residents and 201 shops and business users
Wave 2 (Spring 2024) - 312 residents and 324 shops and business users
Wave 3 (Autumn 2024) - 318 residents and 267 shops and business users
Residents all lived within the LTN area and the research was carried out by a reputable company which is a member of the Marke Research Society.
During the 6-month consultation period on the ETRO there were 306 responses to the statutory consultation, with 156 (51%) in favour, 131 (43%) opposed and the remaining neutral or posing questions. All consultation responses can be read at appendix 7 of the TRO sub-committee papers.
7) The bus gate is useless
There are no current bus routes which use the bus gate. This is because council officers needed to make a decision on the location of the bus gate ahead of any buses being routed through the area. The 34 bus route was initially introduced on Salamander Place as a temporary measure, but following positive feedback the operator has decided to keep the service there.
However, the bus gate still has an important role in discouraging eastbound motor traffic along Links Place. If the bus gate were removed with nothing to replace it, there would likely be an increase in motor traffic along Links Place.
8) The cycle contraflow lanes on Tolbooth Wynd etc are dangerous
The council’s street design guidance, which has been approved by council committee, sets out a presumption that all streets should be two-way for those travelling by bicycle, and there should always be an exemption for cyclists on one-way streets. This is to help achieve the objectives in the City Mobility Plan including making it easier for people to walk, wheel and cycle. More detail on how this can be achieved safely are set out in the council’s factsheet C5 which forms part of the street design guidance.
In addition, the council’s road safety audit on the LTN, which can be found at appendix 11 of the committee papers, looked at the issue of the cycle contraflow lane. The only issue raised was that some of the street signs are not illuminated. However, there is no requirement to illuminate these signs.
9) The TRO sub-committee on 18 February can decide to move the bus gate to Links Gardens
No they can’t. Unfortunately there was a misleading blog post from the community council which suggested that the committee would take ‘a first step’ towards moving the bus gate, but this simply isn’t true.
Council officers are considering whether to move it. If they decide to do that, they will bring a report to the council’s Transport and Environment Committee to seek permission to start the process. That process would require a new traffic regulation order (TRO) which would require a minimum of 3 weeks of public consultation (and committee might decide to require more consultation than this).
And for the avoidance of doubt, council officers are considering moving the bus gate to a new location, not adding an additional one. This can all be confirmed in paragraphs 4.70 and 4.71 of the committee report, which also makes clear that this would be a separate process to which members of the public could comment and object.
And, last but by no means least…
10) The LTN simply moves traffic onto surrounding roads and creates more rat-runs, it doesn’t reduce traffic
This simply is not true. Both the 6-month monitoring report and the 12-month report show, with data from traffic counts, that the total number of vehicles over 24 hours is down on every street in the scheme except for Duncan Place. Table 1 on page 6 of the 12-month report shows that weekday average vehicle flows across the 10 streets which were monitored showed a decrease of 21,445 vehicle movements. This amounts to a 45% reduction across the area.
​
It’s important to point out that the streets monitored were not just the ones with new restrictions. Queen Charlotte Street and Elbe Street had no new restrictions, but they both saw a reduction in vehicle flows. Likewise the only boundary road which was monitored, Baltic Street, saw a reduction of over 1,000 vehicle movements or a 6.7% reduction.
If, as critics of the LTN claim, it is simply pushing traffic onto boundary roads, then Baltic Street would have seen an increase. It didn’t. This leads us to conclude the LTN has successfully reduced traffic across the area, and why we are urging the council to make it permanent.
​
