Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) should be my nirvana. They are quiet, with low levels of pollution; pleasant to walk in, easy to cycle around. The sort of liveable places the UK Noise Association, which I chair, has dreamt about for decades.

And yet I feel they are hugely problematic. In most cases, they simply displace traffic and pollution to the adjacent main and boundary roads. This makes no sense.

According to a recent survey, London is now the world’s most congested city, with most of this occurring on its main roads. 8.5 per cent of the capital’s population lives on these roads; about 720,000 people. And many more of us spend a lot of time on them. This is particularly true of poor people who are less likely to own a car. In our big cities, a disproportionate number are from ethnic minority communities. Low traffic neighbourhoods are therefore inherently unfair and socially divisive. Life inside the LTN may feel calm and peaceful, but it comes at a tremendous cost to those living just outside of it.

Many local authorities across the country established LTNs with the best of intentions, but they were never designed to ease congestion on main roads or to assist those living on them.Their purpose was to reduce traffic on ‘residential’ roads; to make walking and cycling more attractive to inhabitants of these roads in the hope of encouraging them to use their cars less; and to promote active travel during the pandemic.

Many environmentalists, cyclists in particular, are evangelical in their support for LTNs. Some have worked hand-in-glove with local authorities to introduce them. They cannot see why any environmental body might entertain even a slither of doubt.

We are the wrong kind of enemy, it seems. Environmental believers feel most comfortable dealing with their traditional opponents, the devil they know: dyed-in-the-wool motorists who hate restrictions on cars. Yet they struggle to answer the concerns of fellow environmentalists, much less the frustrations of low-income residents who, after decades of silence, are mobilising in great numbers against LTNs. Often the most articulate objections come from the mums and dads of the minority ethnic communities on those main roads who are concerned about the impact of extra traffic on their children.

When challenged about overspill traffic, many environmentalists resort to theory rather than face up to the reality of what is happening. They favour two main theories – firstly, that residents of LTNs will drive less, thus reducing traffic on the main roads. And, secondly, that when road space is reduced, traffic evaporates. In reality, though some residents will use their cars less and some of the traffic will disappear, the quantities are quite unknown.

I get the distinct impression that LTNs are simply an experiment in traffic reduction whose outcome is uncertain. The residents on main and boundary roads are the guinea pigs who may never escape the treadmill of high traffic streets.

This is no basis for effective policy-making. Given the congestion on our streets, radical measures, probably including road-user charging in some places, will be required to get towns and cities moving again. But transformational change will only ever succeed with widespread buy-in from the population. And one of the pre-conditions for that is the policy is seen to be fair.

Low traffic neighbourhoods may give the illusion of a better environment but they also act as a barrier to dealing with a much more pressing problem: traffic on main roads. It is essential that it is tackled. It will bring the biggest health benefits. And it will provide the best chance to cut congestion and unlock Britain’s great cities once again.

John Stewart is chairman of the UK Noise Association