Author: Lawrence Durham

  • Are Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Right for London, Canada?

    Are Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Right for London, Canada?

    [10-minute read]

    Like many cities around the world, London, Canada, has a problem with drivers who dangerously cut through neighbourhoods. 

    As London’s population has grown, so too has its traffic volume. Thus, it’s no surprise that frustrated drivers in heavy traffic on arterial roads are taking shortcuts, or “rat running,” through quiet London neighbourhoods that were never designed to be thoroughfares.

    While it may save a little time for the driver, it increases local traffic and makes small neighbourhood streets more treacherous.

    Think of rats running through a maze. Now, instead of rats, substitute drivers. 
    (Photo credit: Eluj, from Pixabay)

    For the average Londoner, what are the consequences of people rushing around in cars?

    So, what can be done to make our neighbourhoods safer? To answer that, we need to look at what cities in the UK have done to combat the same issues.

    Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in the UK

    Since the 1960s, towns and cities in the United Kingdom have designated certain residential areas as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). These are areas in which both “filtered permeability” and “traffic calming” measures are deployed to reduce motorized through-traffic (think bollards, barriers, and bumps). 

    Obviously, the Brits have gained a lot of experience with this over the years. In fact, even before the pandemic, they had already established at least 25,000 modal filters across the UK.

    Modal filters are barriers that prevent some modes of traffic, for example, automobiles, from passing through barriers, but allow other modes of traffic, such as pedestrians and bicycles, to pass through easily.

    Modal filter in the London Borough of Waltham Forest.
    (Photo credit: Rachel Aldred)
    Example of planters being used as modal filters on a street in London, UK.
    (Photo credit: Steve Parsons)
    Bicycle rider passing through a modal filter.
    (Photo credit: Linda Nylind/The Guardian)

    Starting in the spring of 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, London rolled out an additional seventy-two LTNs with modal filters across the city, covering a population of around 300,000 people.

    Obviously, this was NOT a small undertaking.

    Do LTNs actually work?

    Yep!

    Research conducted over the last five years found a decrease in traffic volume, nitrogen dioxide pollution, injuries, and even crime after LTNs were implemented.

    They also found an increase in active travel, such as walking and bicycling.

    You can find the results from numerous recent research studies in a large chart at the end of this article.

    Does anyone object to LTNs?

    Yes, of course, there will always be naysayers. It’s normal to fear change.

    Common objections to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods include:

    • the cost of implementation
    • lack of consultation
    • speculation that the issue would affect election results
    • increased traffic on “boundary roads” (this is UK terminology), we use the term “arterial roads” in Canada.

    Here is what the studies found:

    • There was no evidence that traffic increased significantly on boundary roads when compared with control roads in the same area.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • Likewise, there was no evidence that emergency vehicle response times were negatively affected inside LTNs, and some evidence that they improved slightly on boundary roads.14
    • As for affecting election results, the doomsday predictions that candidates in favour of LTNs would lose badly never came to pass. In fact, the opposite occurred. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    • And finally, in a 2023 survey of residents of trial LTN areas, twice as many supported the schemes as opposed them.5 

    Yay! Success! 

    It turns out that most of the concerns listed earlier were unfounded.

    [Watch time: 2:50 min]

    What is London, Canada, currently doing?

    Right now, the City of London uses the following traffic calming measures to reduce both motor vehicle speeds and traffic volumes:

    • Vertical measures, such as speed cushions and raised intersections/ crosswalks
    • Horizontal measures, such as on-street parking, curb extensions/ road narrowing, mini roundabouts, centre islands, and in-road flexible signs
    • Passive measures, such as pavement markings, “Respect the Limit” lawn signs, and speed display boards

    While these traffic calming measures may have some success in reducing vehicle speeds, they are less helpful in reducing traffic volumes. That’s why modal filters are so beneficial, as illustrated by the UK examples given above.

    London, Ontario, already uses modal filters, such as the one at Empress and Rathnally, to great effect (see below). Cut-through traffic on these streets has been completely eliminated. 

    Huh? It’s almost like street design can be 100% effective if implemented properly.

    The modal filter at the intersection of Rathnally St. & Empress Ave, in London, Ontario.
    (Source: Google Maps)

    Despite this isolated example, the city of London has not yet blocked off any neighbourhoods or other specified large areas as part of a comprehensive Low Traffic Neighbourhood. It has only done small street-by-street changes, scattered throughout the city. 

    What are the next steps for London, Canada?

    As the city grows, so does the need for innovative ways to deal with increased traffic volumes and rat-running behaviour. Hopefully, London can take note of the lessons learned in London, UK, and start making use of LTNs with modal filters in a bigger way.

    Currently, the City of London (Canada) is conducting a traffic management study in Central North London to respond to community concerns about traffic safety, speeding, and cut-through traffic.
    (source: Get Involved London)

    The way forward may not be an easy path for London City Councillors to trod, as the pressure from noisy dissenters who want to maintain the status quo can be very persuasive… especially if their arguments sound reasonable at the surface. But when you dive deeper, you quickly realize that LTNs are a solution to the problems that many residents complain about on a routine basis.

    Given adequate public education, consultation with residents, and the lessons learned from our sister city in the UK, we’re confident that London, Canada, will soon have quieter, safer neighbourhoods that are more walkable and resilient. 

    Now, THAT’S something we can ALL get behind.

    LTN results

    As promised, these are results of recent studies… 

    Decrease in traffic:Inside the Waltham Forest LTN, roads saw an average 44.1% reduction in traffic.1

    A 2022 study of three LTNs in Islington Borough found a 58.2% decrease in traffic.2

    In three LTN areas in Southwark, traffic speeds decreased.3

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 LTNs introduced between May 2020 and May 2021 in 11 London boroughs showed that car traffic within the zones almost halved.4

    A 2023 Department for Transport review found that LTNs were effective in achieving outcomes of reducing traffic volumes within their zones.5
    Decrease in nitrogen dioxide:A 2022 study found that LTNs reduced nitrogen dioxide levels by 5.7% at internal sites, and by 8.9% at boundary sites.2
    Decrease in injuries:Within two LTN areas introduced between 2015 and 2019 (after extensive consultation and with significant engineering improvements), the number of injuries and the risk of injury per trip decreased by about 70% for walkers, cyclists, and car occupants.6

    Of the 72 LTNs introduced in London in 2020 (which were more hastily established with relatively few engineering measures), the injury rates (especially pedestrian injuries) were halved on roads within the LTN zones.7

    A June 2025 research study compared over a decade of road casualty statistics from 113 London LTNs and found a 35% reduction in all injuries, with a 37% reduction in deaths and serious injuries. This equated to over 600 prevented road injuries, including 100 involving death or serious injury.8
    Decrease in crime:The introduction of LTNs led to a decrease in total street crime.
    After 3 years of implementation, a 2021 study found an 18% decrease in street crime in LTN areas. A larger reduction was found for violent crimes and sexual assaults. Only a single subcategory for crime saw an increase: bicycle theft.9, 10
    Increase in active travel:LTNs tend to encourage more active travel, shifting people from car use towards walking and/ or cycling.11, 12, 13

    Lawrence Durham is a member of Strong Towns London, where he regularly engages in local conversations about how to improve the city, including the use of modal filters to create quiet, walkable neighbourhoods. Lawrence is a cheerful, unapologetic optimist known for being relentlessly curious about London and writing about all the amazing things he finds happening in the city he calls home. In addition to running London Bicycle Tours, you may see him riding around the city in all four seasons. Yes, even during our cold Canadian winters!

    References

    1.  Walthamstow Village Review. Project Centre; Enjoy Waltham Forest. Retrieved 27 November 2022
    2.  Yang, Xiuleng; McCoy, Emma; Hough, Katherine; de Nazelle, Audrey (December 2022). “Evaluation of low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and traffic”. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 113 103536. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2022.103536. hdl:10044/1/101078.
    3.  Xiao, Christina S.; Sinclair, Nikita; Saunders, Lucy; Panter, Jenna (November 2023). “Evaluating the impact of low traffic neighbourhoods in areas with low car ownership: A natural experimental evaluation”. Journal of Transport & Health. 33 101658. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2023.101658.
    4.  Thomas, Asa; Aldred, Rachel (March 2024). “Changes in motor traffic in London’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and boundary roads”. Case Studies on Transport Policy. 15 101124. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101124.
    5.  Walker, Peter (8 March 2024). “Rishi Sunak’s report finds low-traffic neighbourhoods work and are popular”. The Guardian. Retrieved 8 March 2024.
    6.  Laverty, Anthony A; Aldred, Rachel; Goodman, Anna (11 January 2021). “The Impact of Introducing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Road Traffic Injuries”. Findings. doi:10.32866/001c.18330. hdl:10044/1/91988.
    7.  Goodman, Anna; Furlong, Jamie; Laverty, Anthony A.; Thomas, Asa; Aldred, Rachel (22 July 2021). “Impacts of 2020 Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London on Road Traffic Injuries”. Findings. doi:10.32866/001c.25633. hdl:10044/1/91978.
    8.  Walker, Peter (2025-07-07). “London’s low-traffic zones ‘cut deaths and injuries by more than a third’”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-07-07.
    9. Goodman, Anna; Aldred, Rachel (13 January 2021). “The Impact of Introducing a Low Traffic Neighbourhood on Street Crime, in Waltham Forest, London” (PDF). doi:10.31235/osf.io/ftm8d.
    10. “Police urge against scrapping low traffic neighbourhood, saying it reduces crime”. road.cc. 2023-02-11. Retrieved 2026-01-23.
    11. Aldred, Rachel; Goodman, Anna (10 September 2020). “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, Car Use, and Active Travel: Evidence from the People and Places Survey of Outer London Active Travel Interventions”. Findings. doi:10.32866/001c.17128.
    12. Aldred, Rachel; Goodman, Anna; Woodcock, James (March 2024). “Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London”. Journal of Transport & Health. 35 101771. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771
    13. Aldred, Rachel; Goodman, Anna (16 March 2021). “The Impact of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Active Travel, Car Use, and Perceptions of Local Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic”. Findings. doi:10.32866/001c.21390. S2CID 233709772.
    14. Goodman, Anna; Laverty, Anthony A; Aldred, Rachel (15 December 2020). “The Impact of Introducing a Low Traffic Neighbourhood on Fire Service Emergency Response Times, in Waltham Forest London”. Findings. doi:10.32866/001c.18198. hdl:10044/1/91991. S2CID 230596381.
    15. “Results 2021 | London Elects”. www.londonelects.org.uk. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    16. “Hoxton East & Shoreditch by-election 2021: All your candidates in one place”. Hackney Citizen. 2021-04-26. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    17. “By-elections | Hackney Council”. hackney.gov.uk. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
    18. Reporter, Julia Gregory Local Democracy (2022-03-07). “Islington consulted on future of low traffic neighbourhoods”. Islington Gazette. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
    19. “By elections | Islington Council”. www.islington.gov.uk. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

    This article was peer reviewed by Sandra Miller, Ben Durham, and Charlene Jimmo.

  • The City of London is Caught Up in a Growth Ponzi Scheme

    The City of London is Caught Up in a Growth Ponzi Scheme

    [6-minute read]

    The City of London is caught in a Growth Ponzi Scheme… and it’s not alone. Most cities in North America are also caught in the same trap.

    Here’s how it works: a city builds new infrastructure, say on the edge of town, to support a new suburb. That development brings in quick revenue through development charges (and other fees) that may cover the costs of installing the infrastructure. It looks like a win. However, it’s a sugar high.

    The problem is that the long-term cost of maintaining all that far-flung infrastructure is far greater than the initial cash infusion generated from the development charges (along with new property taxes, new sales taxes, and new utility fees). So when the maintenance bills for that infrastructure come due, say in 25 years, the city is on the hook. If it doesn’t have the money, it approves more new development on the edge of town to get another hit of short-term cash. And the cycle repeats.

    Skyline of London at sunset. (Photo credit: Mcalpinestudios)

    It’s called a Growth Ponzi Scheme because it only works as long as the city keeps growing. But eventually, the city’s whole financial system starts to crack. That’s where many cities are today, struggling to maintain what they’ve already built, with no clear way to pay for it.

    A recent example in London

    On Jan 20, 2026, CBC News reported that a “Funding gap leaves the Horton-Wharncliffe intersection upgrade with no start date.”

    Even though the city began studying upgrades to the intersection of Wharncliffe and Horton streets back in 2014, the $90 million project is still stalled 12 years later due to a $39 million funding gap. 

    The bottleneck at the intersection of Horton and Wharncliffe, where traffic squeezes underneath the narrow CN Rail underpass. (Photo credit: Andrew Lupton/CBC News).

    The CBC article notes that “one pressure point has been lower-than-expected revenue from development charges (DCs), which are the fees developers pay to the city to cover growth costs.”  

    Why is there lower-than-expected revenue from development charges? “A city staff report in October said DC revenues have been dragged down by as much as 50 per cent by a combination of factors, including lower than expected population growth.”

    Which brings up the question, how was the city planning to cover that $39 million shortfall in the first place?

    Proof of unsustainability without constant growth 

    In last year’s capital budget, the city had allocated $51 million for this $90 million project. To cover the difference, the city was counting on DCs to fund $21 million, with CN Rail contributing just under $6 million. “The final $12.5 million was slated to come from borrowing, with the taxpayer-supported budget responsible for those borrowing costs.”

    So, there you have it. If the city stops growing and developing its land, planned infrastructure projects come to a screeching halt. Notice also in the previous paragraph that the “final $12.5 million was slated to come from borrowing.”

    That means that, EVEN WITH development charges, the city would STILL have had to resort to borrowing money and paying interest. This means that the City of London can’t fund infrastructure projects from its own tax base. This makes the City of London more vulnerable to shocks; it is less resilient, and ultimately, the city becomes more fragile.

    Fortunately, the City of London put this project on hold. It was wise to wait until it could figure out how it would pay for its expenses from its existing tax revenues, without relying on development charges or going into more debt.

    And it’s only going to get worse

    In just four years, from 2019 to 2023, city reports clearly show that London’s infrastructure gap is growing. 

    In 2019, the Corporate Asset Management Plan revealed the following:

    • “Based on existing City budget, the infrastructure gap is expected to grow from the current gap of $167.9 million to $568.8 million within the Plan’s 10-year period of analysis.” (source: page 11,/ backup PDF).
    • And what role does road infrastructure play?
      • “The Cumulative Infrastructure Gap for Transportation assets (Roadways, Structures, and Traffic) would grow to more than $223M over the next decade. Trends presented are primarily driven by the Main Roads renewal, which accounts for roughly 72% of this deficit.” (source: page 165).

    By 2023, the Infrastructure Gap increased. According to the latest Corporate Asset Management Plan,

    • To maintain the CURRENT Level of Service (on the $28.5 billion worth of infrastructure under the direct ownership and control of the City of London), the 10-year Infrastructure Gap is $946.1 million.
    • To achieve the PROPOSED Level of Service, the 10-year Infrastructure Gap rises to $1.3781 billion (see table and graph below).
    Source: 2023 Corporate Asset Management Plan, City of London (page 3).

    Yikes! Even if you are not a financial wizard, you can see that the trend line is going in the wrong direction.

    The North American Growth Ponzi Scheme

    By considering these examples from London, you’ve just dipped your toe into a much deeper pond.

    If you are curious to learn how this Ponzi Scheme came about, I invite you to read America’s Growth Ponzi Scheme by Strong Towns. It is, by far, its most accessed and cited article and is well worth the read!

    Highway spaghetti resulting from the rapid expansion of cities. 
    (Photo by Abraham Barrera on Unsplash)

    But be warned. Once you see how this Growth Ponzi Scheme works, you can’t unsee it. And then you’ll want to know more, especially once you realize that you’re not the only person in the world who has had the same nagging feeling that there is something wrong with the unrestrained growth of cities.

    And you’ll be joining thousands of people from all over North America who also realize that the way our cities are growing isn’t working and who are committed to doing something about it. 

    Where do we go from here?

    Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Be the change that you want to see in the world.”

    Strong Towns is a global movement that advocates for financially resilient, walkable, mixed-use communities to replace unsustainable urban growth. With over 290 local groups across North America, it shapes local policies and public discussion through grassroots engagement and education.

    If you want to be involved locally, we invite you to connect with the local Strong Towns London group.

    Join the movement!

    Lawrence Durham is a member of Strong Towns London, where he regularly engages in local conversations about how to improve the city, such as the intersection at Wharncliffe and Horton. Lawrence is a cheerful, unapologetic optimist known for being relentlessly curious about London and writing about all the amazing things he finds happening in the city he calls home. In addition to running London Bicycle Tours, you may see him riding around the city in all four seasons. Yes, even during our cold Canadian winters!

    This article was peer reviewed by Luis Patricio, Sandra Miller, and Ben Durham.