Analysing the environmental, economic and social footprint of Traffic Circulation Plans in Europe: a proposal to determine their efficiency

Aplicación de heterouniones de Fe2O3/TiO2 para procesos de desinfección
Gabriela Carolina Dos Santos Teixeira I
TRABAJO FIN DE MÁSTER
PARA LA OBTENCIÓN DEL
TÍTULO DE MÁSTER EN
INGENIERÍA AMBIENTAL
JUNIO 2025
MAXIME LOYANT
DIRECTORES DEL TRABAJO FIN DE MÁSTER
Guillermo San Miguel Alfaro
Mathieu Chassignet
Analysing the environmental,
economic and social footprint of
Traffic Circulation Plans in Europe:
a proposal to determine their
efficiency

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales (UPM) 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my two supervisors for their
rigorous, supportive, and thoughtful guidance throughout the preparation of this thesis.
To Guillermo: thank you for your unwavering commitment, your precise methodological
insights, and your constructive feedback, all of which have greatly contributed to the clarity,
depth, and structure of this work.
To Mathieu: thank you for inviting me to collaborate on this topic and for your guidance at every
stage of the process. I truly hope this is only the beginning of many future collaborations
between us.
I also want to extend my heartfelt thanks to the professors I had the chance to learn from during
this master’s program. Their teaching, availability, and intellectual generosity have profoundly
shaped my academic development.
To my family: your constant support, love, and thoughtful advice, despite the distance, have
played a central role in helping me carry this work through. Your presence has been both
grounding and motivating throughout this year.
To Elsa, for your kindness and attentive presence during the months of this project, thank you
for being there, simply and sincerely.
And finally, Victor, thank you. Sharing this year with you has been a daily source of joy. I know
our paths will continue to cross, and I’m grateful for your presence throughout this journey.

Analysing the efficiency of Traffic Circulation Plans in Europe
Maxime LOYANT 3
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 2
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE INDEX..................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE INDEX ....................................................................................................................... 6
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... 8
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................10
1.1 Background and relevance of urban mobility..........................................................10
1.2 Traffic Circulation Plans..........................................................................................11
1.2.1 General concept and purpose ...........................................................................11
1.2.2 Traditional TCP .................................................................................................12
1.2.3 Low-Traffic Neighbourhood ...............................................................................15
1.2.4 Superblocks (Supermanzanas) .........................................................................17
1.2.5 Other specific mobility policies (not included in the scope of this study) ............21
2 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................22
3 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................23
3.1 Selection of case studies........................................................................................23
3.1.1 Information available .........................................................................................23
3.1.2 Selection of 3 case studies................................................................................24
3.2 Evaluation framework: a systematic and comparative analysis ..............................25
3.2.1 Descriptive characterisation of each plan ..........................................................25
3.2.2 Indicator-based evaluation ................................................................................26
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................................27
4.1 Description of studied plans ...................................................................................27
4.1.1 Ghent, the traditional TCP plan .........................................................................27
4.1.2 The LTN of Islington in London..........................................................................27
4.1.3 The Sant Antoni superblock in Barcelona..........................................................28
4.1.4 Other selected plans .........................................................................................32
4.2 Effects of TCPs on traffic and transport ..................................................................33
4.2.1 Thematic area 1: Variation in car traffic volumes ...............................................33
4.2.1.1 Global trends across all plans....................................................................33
4.2.1.2 Detailed case studies ................................................................................36
4.2.1.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in car traffic volumes.....................38
4.2.1.4 Recommendations for better standardisation and proposal of indicator.....39
4.2.2 Thematic area 2: Variation in modal shares.......................................................40
4.2.2.2 Detailed case studied ................................................................................41

CONTENTS
4.2.2.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in modal shares ............................42
4.3 Effects of TCPs on health and environment............................................................44
4.3.1 Thematic area 3: Variation in accidents and feeling of safety ...........................44
4.3.1.3 Critical analysis in measuring changes in accidents and safety ................47
4.3.2 Thematic area 4: Variation in air quality............................................................49
4.3.2.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in air quality ..................................53
4.3.3 Thematic area 5: Variation in noise exposure...................................................55
4.3.3.2 Critical analyzis in measuring variation in noise exposure .........................57
4.4 Effects of TCPs on economic activity and social acceptance..................................59
4.4.1 Thematic area 6: Impacts on economic activity ................................................59
4.4.1.2 Detailed case study: Ghent’s TCP .............................................................60
4.4.1.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in economic activity ......................61
4.4.2 Thematic area 7: Social acceptance and well-being.........................................63
4.4.2.3 Critical analysis in measuring social acceptance and wellbeing.................66
4.5 Proposal of a standardised evaluation framework ..................................................69
5 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................71
5.1 Achievements and contributions.............................................................................71
5.2 Limitations and future research directions ..............................................................72
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................73
APENDIX A: TIME PLANNING AND BUDGETING...............................................................77
APENDIX B: IMPACT EVALUATION: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHIC AND
LEGAL .................................................................................................................................79
APENDIX C: CONTRIBUTION TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES....80

Maxime LOYANT 5
FIGURE INDEX
Figure 1: Map of Leuven’s TCP (Smitz, 2016) ......................................................................13
Figure 2: More public spaces, public transport and relaxed streets in Ghent (De Geest, 2017)
.............................................................................................................................................14
Figure 3: Map of Canonbury East LTN (Islington Council, 2021)...........................................15
Figure 4: St Mary’s church LTN in Islington (Islington Council, 2021)....................................16
Figure 5: The Superblocks model (Moreno, 2020)................................................................18
Figure 6: Sant Antoni superblock in Barcelona (Walther, 2022) ............................................19
Figure 7: Map of Ghent’s TCP (De Geest, 2017) ..................................................................27
Figure 8: Map of St Peter LTN (Islington Council, 2021) .......................................................28
Figure 9: Interventions carried out in the superblock of Sant Antoni (ASPB, 2021) ...............29
Figure 10: Mean variation in car traffic aggregated by types of plans ...................................34
Figure 11: Variation in car traffic for the different plans studied.............................................36
Figure 12: Mean variation in air quality for the different types of plans..................................49
Figure 13: Contribution to the UN sustainable development goals........................................80

TABLE INDEX
TABLE INDEX
Table 1: Comparison of TCPs, LTNs and Superblocks .........................................................20
Table 2: Indicators used for the evaluation............................................................................26
Table 3: Characteristics of the three case studies plans .......................................................30
Table 4: Characteristics of the other studied plans................................................................32
Table 5: Variation in car traffic volumes for the different areas studied..................................35
Table 6: Detailed comparison for thematic area 1, variation in car traffic volume ..................37
Table 7: Proposal of an indicator for car traffic volumes........................................................39
Table 8: Variation in modal shares for the different areas studied .........................................40
Table 9: Detailed comparison for thematic area 2, variation in modal shares........................41
Table 10: Proposal of an indicator for modal shares .............................................................43
Table 11 : Variation in number of accidents...........................................................................44
Table 12: Detailed comparison for thematic area 3, variation in accidents and safety feeling46
Table 13: Proposal of indicators for variation in accidents.....................................................48
Table 14: Variation in air quality ...........................................................................................50
Table 15: Detailed comparison for thematic area 4, variation in air quality............................52
Table 16: Proposal of indicators for air quality ......................................................................54
Table 17: Variation in noise exposure ..................................................................................56
Table 18: Proposal of an indicator for variation in noise exposure ........................................58
Table 19: Variation on economic activity in Ghent.................................................................60
Table 20: Proposal of economic indicators............................................................................61
Table 21: Variation in social acceptance across the different cases ......................................64
Table 22: Detailed comparison for indicator 7, variation in social acceptance and well being65
Table 23: Proposal of an indicator for social acceptance and wellbeing................................67
Table 24: Recommended indicator set..................................................................................69
Table 25: Gantt’s diagram of the master thesis.....................................................................77
Table 26: Hours-person used................................................................................................78
Table 27: Budget estimation .................................................................................................78

Maxime LOYANT 7
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HGVs Heavy Goods Vehicles
LGVs Large Goods Vehicles
LEZs Low Emission Zones
LTA Local Traffic Authorities
LTN Low-traffic Neighbourhood
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
TCP Traffic Circulation plan
TML Transport and Mobility Leuven
TRO Traffic Regulation Orders
UN United Nations
ZTLs Limited Traffic Zones

ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Introduction
European cities are facing growing challenges related to urban congestion,
deteriorating air quality, rising noise levels, and road safety concerns. Transport emissions
remain one of the main contributors to air pollution in dense urban areas, directly impacting
respiratory health and contributing to climate change. Simultaneously, car-dominated public
spaces limit physical activity and social interaction, contributing to sedentary lifestyles and
reduced well-being. In response, a variety of Traffic Circulation Plans (TCPs) have emerged,
aiming to restrict through-traffic, reclaim public space, and promote active and sustainable
mobility. While these measures are often celebrated for their transformative potential, their
actual effectiveness remains insufficiently and unevenly evaluated across contexts.
Objectives
This thesis pursues a dual goal. First, it aims to assess the quality and consistency of
available evidence on the impacts of TCPs, highlighting the current limitations in monitoring
and evaluation practices. Second, it proposes a standardised framework to guide the
systematic evaluation of such plans, based on a set of clearly defined indicators and success
thresholds. More specifically, the research sets out to: (1) identify and classify the main types
of TCPs implemented in Europe—including Superblocks and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
(LTNs); (2) select representative case studies for detailed analysis; (3) compare their observed
impacts across a shared set of indicators; (4) review existing methodologies; and (5) propose
an evaluation framework that can inform future implementations.
Methodology
The study combines a comparative case study approach with indicator-based
evaluation. The research begins by identifying and categorising the main typologies of
circulation plans currently in place across Europe, with a focus on their spatial scale, design
logic, and implementation context. From a larger initial review of thirteen interventions, three
emblematic plans were selected for in-depth study: Ghent’s citywide circulation plan (Belgium),
Islington’s LTNs in London (United Kingdom), and the Sant Antoni Superblock in Barcelona
(Spain). These cases were chosen for their diversity in design, context, and the availability of
publicly accessible evaluation data. The analysis is structured around seven thematic areas:
traffic volumes, modal shares, road safety and perceived safety, air quality, noise levels,
economic impacts, and social acceptance and well-being. Each topic is analysed through two
lenses: aggregated trends across all reviewed interventions, and detailed findings from the
three selected case studies. Additionally, each section includes a critical review of current
measurement practices and proposes one or several standardised indicators to improve future
assessments.
Results
The analysis reveals that well-designed circulation plans consistently reduce car traffic
and contribute to safer, healthier, and more liveable urban environments. Ghent achieved
significant reductions in traffic volumes and road accidents, alongside modal shift gains. In
Barcelona, Superblocks were associated with improved air quality, reduced noise, and positive
perceptions of well-being and sociability. Islington’s LTNs led to decreased car use within
intervention areas and a perceived improvement in street-level experience, though boundary
effects and mixed public acceptance remain key issues. Air quality improvements were
especially clear for NO₂, though data on PM₂.₅ and noise remains sparse. Across all cases,
subjective well-being and public support are generally moderate to positive (40–60% in favour),

Maxime LOYANT 9
with the highest levels of approval found among residents living inside intervention zones.
However, economic impacts—particularly on local commerce—remain inconsistently
measured and often anecdotal. Finally, public participation and communication efforts
appeared to play a key role in acceptance.
A significant contribution of this thesis lies in the development of a standardised
evaluation framework, based on cross-case findings. This framework provides a replicable
structure for describing plans, selecting key indicators, and assessing impact with clearly
defined success thresholds. By aligning evaluation practices across cities, it enables more
transparent comparisons and evidence-based decision-making. It also addresses common
weaknesses in current evaluation efforts, such as lack of long-term monitoring, limited attention
to economic and social equity impacts, and inconsistent methodological transparency.
Conclusions, limitations and future work
This thesis provides both empirical insights and methodological tools to the growing
field of urban mobility transition. It highlights not only the potential of circulation plans to
improve urban health and quality of life, but also the need for rigorous, standardised, and
transparent evaluation practices to ensure their effectiveness and legitimacy. The proposed
framework aims to support local governments, practitioners, and researchers in designing and
assessing traffic interventions that are not only technically relevant, but also socially acceptable
and context sensitive.
Despite these insights, the study acknowledges its own limitations. The analysis relies
heavily on secondary data sources, which are heterogeneous in quality, scope, and availability.
Some key impact areas, particularly economic effects and noise pollution remain
underexplored due to a lack of robust or comparable data. Moreover, certain dimensions such
as long-term behavioural changes could not be addressed within the scope of this work.
Future research should focus on strengthening long-term and standardized monitoring
systems and advancing the understanding of economic and health outcomes. Specific gaps
have been identified for each intervention type: for TCPs, a deeper analysis of noise and
commercial dynamics is needed; for LTNs, economic and noise impacts are still largely
unknown; and for Superblocks, data on traffic safety and local business effects is limited.
Addressing these will be essential to refine impact assessments and ensure interventions are
not only effective, but also inclusive and context-sensitive.
Keywords:
Traffic Circulation Plans, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, Superblocks, urban mobility,
sustainable transport, urban health, modal shift, air quality, road safety, urban planning,
evaluation framework.
UNESCO Codes:
250902 - Air pollution
330537- Urban planning
332702 -Traffic analysis
332907 - Urban transport
590216 – Transport policies

1.INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and relevance of urban mobility
Over half of the world’s population currently resides in urban areas, and this proportion is
projected to rise to nearly 70% by (UN, 2019)(Rydin et al., 2012). Cities have long been
engines of economic development, hubs of innovation, and arenas for social transformation.
However, they are also at the forefront of today’s most pressing environmental and health-
related crises. In Europe in particular, urban areas are hotspots of air pollution, noise exposure,
stress, heat island effects, road congestion, and limited opportunities for active mobility — all
of which are strongly linked to adverse health outcomes and negatively affect people’s well-
being ((Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016); (Khomenko et al., 2021)).
The transport sector plays a central role in these dynamics. It remains a major contributor to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for almost 25% of global energy-related CO₂
emissions, with road transport as the main source (IPCC, 2023). Urban planning decisions
have historically prioritized private car use, and car-centric mobility models have amplified a
series of externalities: increased exposure to air and noise pollution, growing dependence on
fossil fuels, declining levels of walking and cycling, and the reduction of urban green spaces
((Gurney et al., 2022); (Nieuwenhuijsen, 2020)). For instance in Paris, motorized transport
contributes to 61% of the NOx emissions and to 29% of the PM10 emissions(Mairie de Paris,
2025). Without a major shift in current planning practices, these problems are expected to
intensify with urban population growth, putting even more people at risk and deepening
environmental and health inequalities.
In response to these challenges, many cities have positioned themselves as key actors in the
ecological transition. Beyond national frameworks, they have adopted local climate action
plans and joined transnational city networks to collectively address the decarbonisation
challenge (Neij et al., 2015). These urban strategies reflect a growing awareness that reducing
car dependency is essential not only to meet climate targets but also to improve urban quality
of life more broadly.
At the core of these strategies lies the need to curb the excessive presence and dominance of
motorized vehicles in urban space. More precisely, the goals pursued by cities include (Rue
de l’avenir, 2020):
• Reduce traffic-related road risks, particularly those linked to speed, which
disproportionately affect vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists.
• Address urban sprawl by limiting car use and reinforcing the viability of dense,
accessible, and multimodal city forms.
• Reclaim public space from car parking and traffic to enable alternative uses and foster
more equitable spatial distribution.
• Strengthen conditions for active modes of transport, especially walking and cycling,
which are critical to achieving ecological and health goals.
• Reduce air and noise pollution, as well as their psychological and physiological
impacts, such as stress, discomfort, and exposure to chronic disease. According to the
WHO, air pollution alone is responsible for a substantial burden of disease in urban
environments, where traffic emissions often constitute more than half of local air
pollutants.

Maxime LOYANT 11
• Ensure that the implementation of these measures does not compromise other
essential aspects of urban life, such as citizens' mobility, accessibility, and economic
activity, thereby promoting sustainable change without undermining urban functionality.
To address the intertwined challenges of climate change, environmental degradation, and
public health, cities are thus increasingly recognized not only as part of the problem but also
as key arenas for transformative change (Nevens et al., 2013). Their high population densities,
institutional agility, and existing infrastructure make them particularly suited to test and scale
sustainability policies. In recent years, urban decision-makers have begun to reimagine the
very structure of public space — moving away from the car-dominated paradigm that has
shaped cities since the mid-20th century. In some cities, motorized traffic occupies over 60%
of the available street area, with a large share allocated to parking (Nieuwenhuijsen, 2020).
Yet parked cars are typically immobile 95% of the time, while they consume vast amounts of
space that could instead support green infrastructure, social interaction, active mobility, or
public amenities.
In this context, one of the most widely adopted strategies is the reorganization of traffic
circulation to limit car presence to its most functionally necessary and socially beneficial uses
(Rue de l’avenir, 2020). Rather than being designed solely as spaces for motorized vehicles,
streets are increasingly understood as multifunctional spaces that can support local life,
ecological health, and economic vitality. Central to this shift is the reduction of through traffic,
vehicles that pass through urban neighbourhoods without stopping, which is often seen as
incompatible with safe, liveable, and climate-resilient cities (Nello-Deakin, 2022).
1.2 Traffic Circulation Plans
1.2.1 General concept and purpose
Among the various strategies developed by cities to promote more sustainable and liveable
urban environments, a distinct family of interventions has emerged: Traffic Circulation Plans
(TCPs) and their derivatives. A Traffic Circulation Plan is defined as the strategic organization
of traffic flows within a defined perimeter, determining circulation rules for all users — including
cars, cyclists, public transport, and pedestrians. It is a formal planning instrument, typically
adopted by the authority in charge of traffic regulation, which may be a municipality, a
metropolitan body, or a national entity depending on the jurisdiction (Cerema, 2021). Unlike
policies focused solely on emission reductions, pricing mechanisms, or technological
innovation, TCPs aim to reshape the physical and regulatory structure of movement within the
urban fabric. They do so by directly acting on traffic rules and road accessibility, altering how
and where vehicles are allowed to circulate.
Among Europe, various cities have designed models which differ in scope and implementation,
but they share several core ambitions. When designed to reduce traffic and lower vehicle
speeds, Traffic Circulation Plans can contribute to a more equitable sharing of road space,
reduce noise and air pollution, lower the number and severity of accidents, and support a
modal shift towards walking, cycling, and public transport.(Vasta, 2022) In doing so, TCPs act
not only as technical tools to manage traffic but also as levers for broader transformation,
reclaiming public space for social uses, green infrastructure, and community life. By rethinking
streets as places for people rather than mere conduits for cars, these plans directly contribute
to the quality of urban life for residents and visitors alike (Cerema, 2021).
Despite their growing popularity, traffic circulation plans and similar interventions remain
difficult to implement and even harder to evaluate. Politically, they are often controversial, with

1.INTRODUCTION
critics pointing to potential negative side effects such as economic disruption, traffic
displacement to surrounding areas, or restrictions on accessibility (Kuss & Nicholas, 2022).
Public resistance can also be amplified when communication is poor or when the perceived
benefits are unclear.
From a methodological perspective, the evaluation of these schemes is often limited in scope.
Many existing studies focus narrowly on traffic volume reductions, leaving aside broader
impacts related to air quality, road safety, public health, economic vitality, or social acceptance).
Moreover, indicators, data collection methods, and success criteria vary widely between cities,
making comparisons difficult and limiting the capacity to draw transferable lessons. A more
comprehensive approach is therefore needed—one that recognizes the multidimensional
nature of these interventions and their role in shaping urban quality of life. (Tsubohara, 2018);
(Bonte, 2020). Evaluating them effectively requires not only quantitative performance metrics
but also qualitative assessments of how these interventions are perceived and experienced by
different social groups.
This study, conducted in collaboration between the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)
and the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME), seeks to contribute to this emerging
field. It compiles and analyses available data from 13 circulation plans implemented in
European cities—ranging from large-scale TCPs to more localized LTNs and Superblocks.
More precisely, it focuses on three examples of TCP, LTN and superblock to conduct a more
in-depth analysis of these plans. By examining their impacts across key domains such as traffic
volumes, modal split, safety, air quality, and noise exposure, pursues a dual goal. First, it aims
to assess the quality and consistency of available evidence on the impacts of TCPs,
highlighting the current limitations in monitoring and evaluation practices. Second, it proposes
a standardised framework to guide the systematic evaluation of such plans, based on a set of
clearly defined indicators and success thresholds.
The following section will introduce and describe the three main types of traffic circulation plans
and their specificities: the “traditional” Traffic Circulation Plan in Belgium and Netherlands, the
Low-traffic Neighbourhood model in the United Kingdom and the Superblock example in Spain.
1.2.2 Traditional TCP
Traffic Circulation Plans (TCPs) as currently understood in several European countries—
particularly Belgium and the Netherlands—evolved from older, car-oriented traffic
management strategies developed in the second half of the 20th century. The first iterations of
TCPs emerged in the 1970s, mainly as a response to rising car ownership, congestion, and
the need to streamline urban traffic flow. These early plans prioritized motor vehicle efficiency,
using interventions such as one-way street systems, traffic signal coordination, and directional
signage to reduce delays and improve road capacity (Machu, 2020).
However, while initially effective at relieving congestion, these approaches often exacerbated
car dependency and did little to address broader concerns such as safety, environmental
degradation, or urban livability. By the 1990s, growing awareness of these limitations led to a
paradigmatic shift: circulation plans were increasingly aligned with urban sustainability
objectives and began to merge into more comprehensive urban mobility strategies.
The “traditional” TCP model—as it has come to be defined in recent years—was notably
pioneered in cities such as Groningen (1977) (Tsubohara Shinji, 2007) , Louvain (2016), Ghent
(Transport & Mobility Leuven, 2018), and Brussels (2022). These plans represent a
fundamental rethinking of intra-city car circulation. Rather than focusing on traffic optimization,

Maxime LOYANT 13
they seek to actively reduce through-traffic, discourage unnecessary car use, and reallocate
space to sustainable modes of transport.
Figure 1: Map of Leuven’s TCP (Smitz, 2016)
General functioning and principles:
At the heart of this model lies a structural logic in which the city or district is divided into several
traffic cells or sectors. Motor vehicles are permitted to enter and exit each cell but cannot
directly traverse from one cell to another. In contrast, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport
vehicles retain full permeability across cells. This separation is enforced using modal filters
such as bollards, planters, or camera-enforced access points.
From an operational standpoint, these plans usually include:
• Changes in traffic direction (e.g., new one-way streets),
• Partial or full street closures,
• Dedicated lanes for public transport or bikes,
• Speed reduction zones (often 30 km/h or lower),
• And signage to support new circulation patterns.
Context of implementation:

1.INTRODUCTION
These TCPs are typically rolled out at the scale of entire city centres or large districts, where
a high concentration of motorized traffic poses a threat to air quality, safety, and public space
usage. They are especially relevant in medium to large cities with pre-existing modal
alternatives and political will for bold interventions.
Figure 2: More public spaces, public transport and relaxed streets in Ghent (De Geest, 2017)
Strengths:
• Systemic character, which allows for an effective reduction of transit traffic without
requiring full pedestrianization or drastic restrictions.
• Minimize the risk of traffic displacement, as circulation is restructured at a network
level rather than isolated streets.
• Often results in significant gains for active travel and quality of life in central areas.
Weaknesses:
• Require substantial coordination across municipal departments and stakeholders,
• Initial public opposition can be high—especially from drivers or business owners
concerned about access.
• The success of TCPs depends heavily on complementary measures, such as
improvements to public transport or cycling network and clear communication
strategies.

Maxime LOYANT 15
1.2.3 Low-Traffic Neighbourhood
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are a type of traffic management intervention aimed at
reducing motorized through-traffic within residential areas while preserving access for
residents, deliveries, emergency services, and essential users(Ipsos, 2024). Though versions
of LTNs have existed in the United Kingdom for several decades, their widespread
implementation was significantly accelerated by the Emergency Active Travel Fund launched
in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and by the British government’s broader
commitment to promoting walking and cycling under the “Gear Change” strategy (Leach et al.,
2024)
LTNs operate by filtering motor traffic: vehicles are prevented from cutting through residential
streets, but full permeability is retained for pedestrians, cyclists, and sometimes public
transport. This is typically achieved through modal filters, which can be either physical
(planters, bollards, street closures) or regulatory (signs enforced by cameras or traffic orders).
Unlike traditional TCPs, LTNs are highly localized, often affecting a few blocks or a small
neighbourhood. They do not aim to redesign the entire urban circulation system but focus on
eliminating rat-running, i.e., short-cut driving through local streets.(Ipsos, 2024)
Figure 3: Map of Canonbury East LTN (Islington Council, 2021)

1.INTRODUCTION
Policy and legal framework:
LTNs are designed and implemented by Local Traffic Authorities (LTAs) under powers granted
by the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984), the Highways Act (1980), and the Traffic
Management Act (2004). These laws allow for permanent, experimental, or temporary Traffic
Regulation Orders (TROs), which determine how and where vehicles can circulate.
Implementation may follow public consultation or trial phases, with temporary schemes often
deployed rapidly during crises, as seen during the pandemic.
Main objectives:
LTNs are promoted to:
• Improve road safety, especially for pedestrians and cyclists;
• Encourage active travel by making streets calmer and safer;
• Improve air quality and reduce noise pollution;
• Enhance neighbourhood liveability by reducing car dominance.
Their overarching goal aligns with broader urban mobility objectives: reducing car dependency,
rebalancing the use of public space, and supporting healthier and more sustainable local
environments.
LTNs are particularly suited to medium-sized interventions at the neighbourhood scale,
typically in urban or peri-urban residential areas. Their cost is generally low compared to full-
scale traffic restructuring, which makes them accessible to municipalities with limited
resources. Furthermore, the modular nature of LTNs allows for phased or experimental
implementation.
Figure 4: St Mary’s church LTN in Islington (Islington Council, 2021)
Strengths:
• Quick and inexpensive to deploy;
• Proven efficacy in reducing injury rates, especially among pedestrians;

Maxime LOYANT 17
• Potential for community engagement, particularly when schemes are co-developed
with local residents;
• Can lead to measurable reductions in vehicle traffic, emissions, and noise levels on
internal streets.
Weaknesses:
• Their localized nature means traffic can be displaced to boundary roads, sometimes
worsening conditions there;
• Implementation can trigger opposition, particularly from drivers or businesses
concerned with access or congestion;
• Risk of gentrification, as more attractive neighbourhoods may lead to rising rents and
social displacement;
• The lack of consistent definitions and standardized evaluation frameworks makes
comparison and assessment across contexts difficult;
• Quantitative data on long-term modal shift and economic impacts remains limited or
mixed.
1.2.4 Superblocks (Supermanzanas)
Superblocks (or Supermanzanas in Spanish) are a transformative urban design strategy
developed in Spain, particularly in Barcelona, that radically reconfigure the way public space
is used and prioritized.(Tiran & Sazu, 2023)
The core operational principle is traffic filtering: motorized vehicles are prevented from crossing
the Superblock, which becomes permeable only to pedestrians, cyclists, and sometimes public
transport. Inside the block, former transit routes are redesigned as multi-use public spaces—
including green corridors, plazas, children’s play areas, and community gathering spots. A
typical Superblock consists of a 400 x 400-meter grid—grouping together nine traditional city
blocks—bounded by perimeter roads, where through-traffic is maintained but limited to 50
km/h, while internal streets are restricted to local access traffic only, at a maximum of 10–20
km/h (Mueller et al., 2020). While TCPs often optimize street hierarchies and flow, Superblocks
seek to reclaim streets as shared public realm, shifting the logic from circulation to urban
habitability.
Two typologies of implementation exist:
• Planned Superblocks, built in newly designed neighbourhoods with regular layouts.
• Retrofitted Superblocks, adapted to existing urban fabrics with diverse morphologies
and needs.

1.INTRODUCTION
Figure 5: The Superblocks model (Moreno, 2020)
Main objectives:
Superblocks aim to address several interlinked goals (ASPB, 2021):
• Eliminate unnecessary motor traffic and reallocate street space;
• Improve local environmental quality, including air and noise pollution;
• Promote active mobility (walking, cycling) and reduce reliance on private cars;
• Enhance health outcomes through more physical activity, reduced stress, and fewer
accidents;
• Reinforce community life, by making the public realm more convivial, greener, and
socially inclusive;
• Mitigate urban heat island effects, particularly important in warmer climates like the
Mediterranean.
Superblocks are designed for dense urban areas, typically in medium-to-large cities with grid-
like street networks and mixed land uses. They are particularly suited to inner-city districts
where a critical mass of residents, services, and infrastructure allows for diverse and localized
lifestyles. While the concept is scalable, its current applications remain relatively limited in
number and scope, mostly concentrated in Spain, with pilot projects being tested in Latin
America and some European cities(Tiran & Sazu, 2023).

Maxime LOYANT 19
Figure 6: Sant Antoni superblock in Barcelona (Walther, 2022)
Strengths ((Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016) (Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2024) (Pérez et al.,
2025)):
• High transformative potential for rethinking urban life and space;
• Multi-dimensional benefits, from reduced emissions to improved social cohesion and
health;
• Strong symbolic and political visibility, often acting as a flagship for urban sustainability;
• Public space gains, supporting climate adaptation and biodiversity (e.g., green
infrastructure);
• Can stimulate local business and economic life, by attracting footfall and enhancing
place identity.
Weaknesses ((Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2016) (Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2024) (Pérez et al.,
2025)):
• Implementation complexity: requires coordinated redesign of traffic, public space, and
infrastructure;
• Potential resistance from motorists and business owners, particularly during early
phases;
• Risk of gentrification, as more attractive neighbourhoods may lead to rising rents and
social displacement;
• Limited empirical evaluation beyond pilot cases—especially concerning long-term
economic or equity impacts;
• Scalability challenges: adapting the model to irregular urban fabrics or different cultural
contexts can be hard.

1.INTRODUCTION
Table 1: Comparison of TCPs, LTNs and Superblocks
Criteria Original TCPs Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) Superblocks
Definition City-scale or central district plans
reorganizing traffic flows, often by
prohibiting through traffic in defined sectors
Localised traffic management schemes
aiming to restrict through-traffic in
residential areas.
Medium-scale reconfiguration of urban grids
into multi-block zones to repurpose space,
restrict traffic and enhance liveability.
Scale Medium to large (city centre or entire city) Local (neighbourhood, a few blocks) Intermediate (several blocks forming a
coherent unit)
Main objectives Reduce through traffic, improve liveability,
prioritize active modes, increase safety
Reduce through-traffic, encourage
walking and cycling, calm streets.
Broader: reduce traffic, improve public
health, green space, social cohesion,
climate resilience.
Operational logic Closure or filtering of key intersections
between sectors; peripheral ring sometimes
used to redistribute traffic
Modal filters (planters, bollards,
cameras) to block through motor traffic
but allow walking, cycling, emergency
access
Internal streets become shared or
pedestrian zones; perimeter absorbs traffic;
often integrated with land use and urban
greening measures
Level of
transformation
Primarily traffic reallocation, less focus on
physical redesign
Light-touch and tactical interventions,
often temporary or reversible
Deeper urban transformation including
space reallocation, infrastructure redesign,
and placemaking
Implementation
mechanisms
Municipal regulation, planned, often long-
term, involving reorganization of city road
network.
Trial schemes with timed restrictions;
local consultations frequent.
Gradual, with multiple phases (tactical →
structural), embedded in urban development
strategy.
Concrete
measures
Closure of cross-sector shortcuts,
directional changes (one-ways, banned
turns), camera enforcement. physical
barriers (bollards, barriers), signposting.
Modal filters widely used (planters,
bollards, signs, cameras), timed gates,
permit systems, access restrictions,
speed limits.
Pedestrianisation, extended sidewalks, one-
way loops, new mobility hubs, green areas,
Strict speed limits: often 10–20 km/h within
internal streets.
Representative
examples
Groningen, Ghent, Brussels Canonbury East, St Peter's, Brunswick
Park (London)
Poblenou, Sant Antoni, Horta superblocks
(Barcelona), Vitoria Gasteiz
Observed effects Reduced internal traffic, variable impact at
edges, modal shift evidence, improved air
quality
Strong internal traffic reductions, more
mixed results on boundary roads
Reduced traffic and emissions, improved air
quality, increased active travel, often
accompanied by public realm improvement
Challenges Coordination and communication, risk of
peripheral congestion, political resistance
Public opposition at early stages,
concern about displacement
Complexity of integration, higher costs,
longer planning horizon

Maxime LOYANT 21
1.2.5 Other specific mobility policies (not included in the scope of this study)
While TCPs often share objectives with other urban traffic interventions, they operate on
distinct principles. It is therefore important to differentiate them from three policy instruments
that may appear similar at first glance: Low Emission Zones (LEZs), Limited Traffic Zones
(ZTLs), and congestion charging schemes. (Pianu & Gielly, 2025)
Low Emission Zones (LEZs), widely adopted in cities like Paris, Berlin or London, restrict
vehicle access based on environmental performance, usually linked to Euro standards or
emissions class. Their aim is to reduce air pollution by excluding the most polluting vehicles.
However, unlike TCPs, LEZs do not alter the structure of traffic flow or urban circulation logic.
They may reduce traffic volumes, but do not reorganize space or reallocate street use toward
more active or sustainable modes.
Limited Traffic Zones (ZTLs), historically implemented in Italian cities like Rome, Bologna or
Milan since the 1970s, are designed to restrict vehicle access within designated urban areas.
Access is often limited to residents, deliveries, and public service vehicles, typically via permit
systems. ZTLs aim to preserve the liveability and functionality of historic centres by eliminating
unnecessary traffic. While their regulatory mechanisms differ from TCPs, both policies share
the goal of removing transit traffic. However, ZTLs usually do not involve a systemic
reorganization of circulation or street space. (Fayolle et al., 2019)
Congestion pricing schemes, such as those in London, Stockholm or Milan, introduce a
financial disincentive to entering dense urban areas at peak times. Their objective is to reduce
traffic congestion and encourage modal shift toward public transport. These systems rely on
tolling, enforcement, and technological infrastructure, and while they can indirectly impact
traffic volumes and emissions, they do not modify traffic patterns or reclaim public space in the
way TCPs do. (Herzog, 2024)
In contrast to these instruments, TCPs, and their variants such as Superblocks or LTNs, aim
to fundamentally restructure the movement and logic of circulation in each area, often using
physical interventions and design-based approaches rather than regulatory or economic levers
alone.

2.OBJECTIVES
2 OBJECTIVES
This thesis aims to provide a systematic comprehensive and evidence-based analysis
of Traffic Circulation Plans (TCPs), their effects in various European contexts and to
develop a standardised framework for their evaluation and implementation.
To do so, the study will pursue the following specific objectives:
1. Identify and categorise the main typologies of TCPs and related interventions currently
implemented across European cities, such as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and
Superblocks.
2. Select a representative sample of TCPs for in-depth analysis, based on data availability
and diversity of contexts.
3. Define a systematic methodology for the analysis of TCP including a set of indicators
focussing on environmental, social and socioeconomic performance
4. Evaluate the observed impacts of these plans across sevent thematic areas (traffic
volumes, modal shares, safety, air quality, noise, economic activity, wellbeing and
perceptions).
5. Analyse the variability of outcomes across urban contexts and identify contextual
factors contributing to the success or limitations of the interventions.
6. Critically review existing evaluation methods, highlighting strengths, methodological
limitations, and gaps in current monitoring practices.
7. Propose a standardised evaluation framework, including key indicators and success
thresholds, to guide future assessments of similar plans.

Maxime LOYANT 23
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Selection of case studies
3.1.1 Information available
The starting point of this study was a comprehensive literature review aimed at describing
TCPs, selecting a number of them for in-depth analysis, identifying and comparing
methodologies intended to evaluate their effectiveness, and evaluating the impacts of three
representative types of circulation plans: Traditional Traffic Circulation Plans, Low Traffic
Neighbourhoods, and Superblocks. The objective was to gather both quantitative and
qualitative data on their effects across a consistent set of indicators: mobility patterns,
environmental outcomes, health, social perception, and economic impacts.
Given the relative novelty and diversity of these interventions, the research strategy had to
integrate a wide range of data sources, from peer-reviewed academic literature to grey
literature, including municipal reports, NGO publications, technical evaluations, planning
documents, press articles, and where available, raw traffic or air quality data provided by local
authorities.
The literature search was structured around a set of intervention-related and thematic
keywords, adapted from existing review methodologies. Intervention terms included: “traffic
circulation plan”, “low-traffic neighbourhood”, “superblocks”, “car-free zone”, “modal filter”,
“through-traffic”. Thematic terms covered: “traffic volume”, “modal shares”, “air quality”, “road
safety”, “active travel”, “social acceptance”, “business impact”, and “accessibility”. This dual-
entry approach helped target documents that not only described the plans but also assessed
their impacts in a measurable way.
The availability and nature of data differ significantly between plan types:
• The TCP category presents a heterogeneous picture. While less present in the
scientific literature, several cities have produced detailed and multi-dimensional
municipal evaluations, often of high methodological quality. Ghent stands out with two
extensive reports (2018, 2019) published by Transport & Mobility Leuven—a research
and consultancy organisation—covering a wide range of indicators (mobility patterns,
environmental effects, road safety, perceptions, economic impacts, etc.). Although not
peer-reviewed, these reports represent one of the most comprehensive monitoring
frameworks available for such interventions. In contrast, the scientific literature on
TCPs is much more limited and focuses predominantly on Groningen, often analysing
the democratic process and institutional dynamics that led to the plan’s adoption, rather
than its quantified outcomes. Other cases like Brussels and Leuven offer rich datasets
published on public open-data portals and communicate results proactively via
municipal channels. However, there is no academic literature evaluating these cases
to date, and access to the methodologies behind some reported figures remains
limited.
• LTNs have been the subject of extensive academic scrutiny, particularly in the UK
context. Numerous peer-reviewed studies evaluate traffic volume reductions and
changes in air pollution levels, with some also addressing road safety outcomes. A
recent literature review (Ipsos, 2024) consolidates these findings but highlights that
most studies remain narrowly focused on a limited set of indicators, notably neglecting
social and economic dimensions.
• For Superblocks, especially in Barcelona, a rich body of grey and scientific literature
exists. This includes a comprehensive academic review (Tiran & Sazu, 2023) and

3.METHODOLOGY
several technical evaluations by local institutions. Studies often go beyond traffic and
air quality to also examine impacts on green space provision, noise levels, and urban
well-being. However, robust empirical data is rarer, and some figures are based on
projections rather than observed measurements. Moreover, economic impacts,
especially on local commerce and retail—remain virtually unexplored.
Given these variations, the present analysis integrates both scientific and grey literature,
provided that the methodological basis of the documents is sufficiently transparent and
rigorous (e.g., pre/post comparisons, clearly defined indicators, time-stamped datasets).
Municipal reports, when robust and supported by clear data collection protocols, are treated
as valid sources alongside academic articles.
This mix of sources reflects both the pragmatic need to work with real-world evaluation
materials, especially for city-led projects, and the uneven academic attention these
interventions have received. It also highlights the importance of establishing shared evaluation
frameworks to enable more consistent and comparable assessments across cities and
intervention types.
3.1.2 Selection of 3 case studies
In total, this study reviews 14 circulation plans (see Table 3: Characteristics of the three case
studies plans and Table 4: Characteristics of the other studied plans) implemented in various
European cities across three typologies: TCPs, LTNs, and Superblocks. While all these cases
are considered to identify broad patterns and draw comparative insights, a detailed analysis
has been reserved for three representative examples with one from each typology.
This choice was made for two main reasons. First, the level of detail and availability of reliable
data varies considerably between cities. Not all plans offer the same depth of documentation,
which limits the feasibility of conducting a robust comparative analysis across all cases.
Second, focusing on three in-depth case studies allows for clarity and rigour, while still situating
each example within the broader trends derived from the full dataset.
Case Study 1 – Ghent (Traditional Circulation Plan)
Among all TCPs reviewed, Ghent stands out as the most extensively documented case. The
city implemented its circulation plan in 2017 as part of a broader mobility strategy aimed at
reducing car dependency and improving quality of life. What makes Ghent particularly valuable
for this study is the availability of two successive evaluation reports, produced by Transport &
Mobility Leuven (TML) in collaboration with the municipality. These reports cover a wide range
of indicators, including not only traffic volumes and modal split, but also air quality, accident
rates, citizen perception, and economic impacts on local businesses.
The methodology used by TML is both robust and transparent, relying on a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methods: intersection traffic counts, license plate surveys, travel
behaviour questionnaires, and data from national diagnostics. This allows for a uniquely
detailed view of the plan’s outcomes and provides a useful benchmark for other cities.
Moreover, the Ghent model has become influential beyond Belgium, serving as an inspiration
for cities such as Birmingham (UK) and Wellington (New Zealand).

Maxime LOYANT 25
Case Study 2 – Islington (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods)
For the LTN typology, the borough of Islington in London was selected. Located in Inner
London, Islington is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the UK and has
implemented multiple LTN schemes since 2020 under the "People Friendly Streets" program.
Islington offers a particularly valuable dataset because it combines academic evaluation
(notably studies using difference-in-differences approaches to assess air quality and traffic)
with detailed local authority reports that document scheme implementation, public feedback,
and operational changes over time. The borough has made available extensive monitoring
data—traffic counts, NO₂ concentration levels, and qualitative feedback from residents—
making it possible to assess the effectiveness and adaptation of the measures. The inclusion
of several LTN zones within the borough further allows for some intra-case comparison,
providing a more granular understanding of how LTNs perform across different urban layouts
and contexts.
Case Study 3 – Sant Antoni (Barcelona Superblock)
The Sant Antoni Superblock, introduced in 2018, was selected as a representative case for the
Superblocks model due to its strategic role in the evolution of the concept. Unlike the earlier
Poblenou pilot, which was more experimental, Sant Antoni embodies a second-generation
Superblock, designed at the neighbourhood scale and intended to serve as a replicable model
across the city of Barcelona.
This case benefits from a series of municipal technical reports and academic analyses that
explore various dimensions of the intervention—notably traffic evolution, urban habitability, and
environmental quality. While some limitations persist, particularly around economic impact
data, Sant Antoni remains the most institutionally and methodologically mature Superblock
currently documented and has since been cited as a blueprint for subsequent developments
under the Superilla Barcelona programme.
3.2 Evaluation framework: a systematic and comparative analysis
This second part of the methodology outlines the analytical framework used to evaluate the
selected traffic circulation plans (TCPs). The aim is twofold: (1) to conduct a comparative
assessment of the selected plans across a common set of indicators, and (2) to gradually build
the foundations for a more robust and standardised evaluation framework that could guide
future urban mobility interventions.
The evaluation is based on two main components, the description of the characteristics of each
plan and an evaluation based on indicators.
3.2.1 Descriptive characterisation of each plan
For every mobility plan studied (including but not limited to the three detailed case studies), we
first conduct a systematic description covering:
• The policy context and general structure of the plan
• The stated objectives, as formulated by the implementing authority
• The specific interventions adopted, including:
o Physical measures (e.g., modal filters, pedestrian zones, circulation loops)

3.METHODOLOGY
o Complementary measures (e.g. communication, regulatory adjustments,
delivery rules)
This ensures a shared understanding of what each plan is trying to achieve and through what
means.
3.2.2 Indicator-based evaluation
Each plan is assessed through a common set of seven thematic areas, grouped into three
main thematic dimensions:
Table 2: Indicators used for the evaluation
Dimension Thematic area
Traffic and
transport
1. Variation in traffic volumes
2. Variation in modal shares
Health &
Environment
3. Variation in traffic-related accidents and perceived safety
4. Variation in air quality
5. Variation in noise exposure
Socioeconomic
impact
6. Economic effects (local business dynamics, consumption patterns)
7. Social impacts and public perception (wellbeing, support, fairness)
Each area is then explored through a three-layered approach:
1. Global trends – A synthetic overview of available results across all studied plans.
2. Detailed case studies – For the 3 selected plan, we analyse:
o Explanation of the indicator used
o Results obtained
o Interpretation considering plan design and context
o Correlation between plans features and indicator variation
3. Meta-Evaluation of the indicator, for each indicator, we provide:
o Good practices observed
o Methodological gaps and limitations
o Recommendations for better standardisation
o A proposal of one or serveral reference indicators, concretely measurables and
clearly defined, to guide future evaluations.

Maxime LOYANT 27
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Description of studied plans
4.1.1 Ghent, the traditional TCP plan
Ghent’s Circulation Plan (Verkeerscirculatieplan) was officially implemented on April 3, 2017,
as a core component of the city’s 2015–2020 Sustainable Mobility Strategy. Unlike smaller
interventions such as LTNs, Ghent’s plan reorganizes traffic circulation at city-centre scale,
focusing on redirecting motorized through-traffic and improving accessibility for sustainable
modes. The plan divides the inner city into six sectors and a central car-free zone, with access
allowed into each sector only via the city ring road (R40)—but not directly between them. This
“sectorisation” approach prevents car-based cross-city shortcuts, ensuring more space for
walking, cycling, and public transport.(De Geest, 2017) (Transport & Mobility Leuven, 2018),
(Gent Stad, 2018).
Figure 7: Map of Ghent’s TCP (De Geest, 2017)
4.1.2 The LTN of Islington in London
The London Borough of Islington launched its Low Traffic Neighbourhoods initiative under the
People-Friendly Streets (PFS) programme in 2020–2021 as part of an emergency COVID-19
response and broader urban transformation agenda. Islington is the most densely populated
borough in London, with only 13% green space and significant deprivation levels. Its residential
areas have long been affected by excessive through-traffic using local streets as shortcuts
(Yang et al., 2022).

4.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Seven LTNs were implemented across the borough, with three neighbourhoods—Canonbury
East, Clerkenwell, and St Peter’s, serving as the most extensively documented and evaluated
pilots. These LTNs were introduced on an 18-month trial basis, supported by camera-enforced
traffic filters and temporary street-level interventions. Public consultations were conducted
approximately one year after implementation, and final decisions were informed by both
monitoring data and resident feedback (Islington Council, 2021).
Each LTN employs inexpensive but effective infrastructure—bollards, planters, road closures,
and signage—designed to prevent motorized through-traffic while preserving access for
residents, deliveries, and emergency services. Enforcement relies on automatic number plate
recognition (ANPR) cameras. Blue Badge holders were later granted exemptions following
community consultations.
This multi-scheme implementation provides a valuable example of how LTNs can be scaled at
the borough level and assessed over time.
Figure 8: Map of St Peter LTN (Islington Council, 2021)
4.1.3 The Sant Antoni superblock in Barcelona
The Sant Antoni Superblock, completed in 2018, represents a pivotal evolution of Barcelona’s
Superblock (Superilla) model. Unlike the original 3×3 grid envisioned by Salvador Rueda, the
Sant Antoni plan covers the entire neighbourhood in an elongated shape, encompassing a
larger area (approximately 12×8 blocks). Rather than transforming all internal streets, only one
in three was pacified and converted into a “green axis,” prioritizing pedestrians, while the
remaining streets maintained motor vehicle access with circulation reorganized through one-
way loops and modal filters. (Mueller et al., 2020)

Maxime LOYANT 29
This design represents a strategic shift: from isolated pacified zones to a more connected and
neighbourhood-wide intervention, focusing on continuity of green corridors. The plan included
the transformation of four key road segments into pedestrian-priority areas forming a central
cross (notably Comte Borrell and Tamarit streets), with the creation of an 1,800 m² public
square at their intersection. This “super-plaza” became the symbolic and spatial heart of the
intervention.
Further phases extended the intervention through both tactical (temporary) and structural
(permanent) actions in adjacent streets like Parlament and Comte Borrell (beyond
Floridablanca). Tactical urbanism elements—raised platforms, planters, and extended
sidewalks—were implemented to calm traffic and enable shared use of space.
Though less radical in appearance than earlier Superblocks like Poblenou, the Sant Antoni
model has since become a reference framework for future Superblocks deployments across
the city, due to its adaptability, community-centred design, and integration with existing urban
dynamics (Tiran & Sazu, 2023).
Figure 9: Interventions carried out in the superblock of Sant Antoni (ASPB, 2021)

Table 3: Characteristics of the three case studies plans
Plan Area
(ha)
Population Implementation
date
Evaluation
date
(pre/post)
Objectives Specific interventions Indicators used for
the evaluation
TCP Ghent
(Belgium)
800 259 979 April 2017 Pre: Oct-
Nov 2016
Post 1:
Oct- Nov
2017
Post 2:
Oct-Nov
2018
• Reduce through-
traffic
• Enhance road safety
• Reduce air and noise
pollution
• Promote modal shift
towards sustainable
mobility
• Improve urban quality
of life
• Improve accessibility
for all transport
modes
(Transport & Mobility
Leuven, 2018)
Physical interventions:
• Division of city into 6
traffic sectors +
expansion of central
car-free zone
• Modal filters to prevent
car-based cross-sector
traffic
• Creation of 4 new
pedestrian zones
• Intersection and traffic
light reconfiguration
• Improved cycling
infrastructure
Complementary
measures:
• Major communication
campaign
• Ongoing public
consultation and
feedback loop
Transport:
• Motor traffic
volume and
speed counts
• Travel time
• Modal share
(mobility
surveys)
Health &
Environment:
• Road accident
statistics
• Air quality
monitoring
(NO₂, PM₁₀)
Economy and Social:
• Shopping
behaviour
• Business
dynamics
• Public opinion
surveys
(acceptability,
safety,
accessibility)
LTNs
Islington
(Canonbury
East,
Clerkenwell
and St
Peter’s) in
~80 ~5000
(each)
July-September
2020
Pre: Jul
2019- Jul
2020
Post: Aug
2020- Nov
2021
• Reduce through-
traffic
• Improve road safety
and reduce collisions
• Promote active and
inclusive mobility
• Modal filters using
bollards, planters, and
ANPR enforcement
• Revised circulation
patterns (e.g., one-way
streets)
Transport:
• Traffic volume
Health &
Environment:
• Road accident
statistics

Maxime LOYANT 31
London
(UK)
• Improve air and noise
quality
• Reclaim public space
for community use
and greening
(Islington Council, 2021)
• Reduced speed limits
• Footpath upgrades,
greening, benches,
murals
Complementary
measures:
• Exemptions for
residents with
disabilities
• Iterative consultation
process with local
communities
• Air quality
monitoring
(NO₂)
Economy and Social:
• Public opinion
surveys
(acceptability,
safety,
accessibility)
• Disability
group
feedback
Sant Antoni
Superblock
in
Barcelona
(Spain)
48,81 38 566 May 2018 Pre: Jun
2017 – Apr
2018
Post: Jun
2018 – Apr
2019
• Reallocate public
space in favour of
pedestrians and
cyclists
• Reduce through-
traffic
• Reduce air and noise
pollution
• Encourage active
travel and healthy
lifestyles
• Strengthen local
social ties and
community cohesion
• Enhance greenery
and urban comfort
• Maintain accessibility
(Ajuntament de
Barcelona, 2022)
(Tiran & Sazu, 2023)
• Pedestrian-prioritised
redesign of major
streets
• Creation of a central
1,800 m² public plaza
• Circulation loops and
filtered permeability
• Reduced speed limits
• Footpath upgrades,
greening, benches,
murals
Complementary
measures:
• Regulated delivery
schedule
• Elimination/reduction of
on-street parking
• Participatory monitoring
and local engagement
Transport:
• Traffic volume
• Modal share
Health &
Environment:
• Air quality
monitoring
(NO₂, PM₁₀,
PM₂.₅)
• Noise level
measurements
(day/night)
Economy and Social:
• Public opinion
surveys
(acceptability,
safety,
accessibility)

4.1.4 Other selected plans
Table 4: Characteristics of the other studied plans
Zone Country Area
(ha)
Population Implementation
Date
Pre-
implementation
measurements
Post-
implementation
measurements
Thematic area
assessed for the
evaluation
Main
sources
TCP
Brussels
pentagone
Belgium 461 51 566 August 2022 October 2021 November 2023 Traffic counts,
accidents, Air quality
monitoring (NO₂),
noise variation card
spending,
(Descamps,
2024)
(Hendrickx,
2024)
TCP
Leuven
Belgium 400 100 000 August 2016 May 2016 May 2017 Traffic counts, modal
shares
(PolisNetwork,
2017)
TCP
Groningen
Netherlands 100 75 000 1977 1977 1978 Traffic counts, modal
shares accidents, Air
quality monitoring
(NO₂), noise
(Tsubohara
Shinji, 2007)
Horta
Superblock
Spain 22,6 8555 October 2018 2017-2018 2018-2019 Modal shares, Air
quality monitoring
(NO₂, PM₁₀, PM₂.₅),
noise
(ASPB, 2021)
(Mueller et al.,
2020)
Poblenou
Superblock
Spain 16 1486 2016 July-December
2019
July-December
2021
Traffic counts, modal
shares
(ASPB, 2021)
(Nello-Deakin,
2022)
LTN
Brunswick
park
UK ~80 8650 December 2020 November 2020 November 2021 Traffic counts (Xiao et al.,
2023)
LTN North
Peckham
2023)
LTN East
Faraday
2023)
LTN
Homerton
UK ~115 14 658 June 2020 November 2019 November 2020 Traffic counts, Air
quality monitoring
(NO₂),
(Homerton
Council, 2021)

Maxime LOYANT 33
4.2 Effects of TCPs on traffic and transport
TCPs, in their various forms, fundamentally aim to reshape the way motorized traffic moves
through urban environments, and they all share the objective of discouraging car dominance
in designated zones. Studying the effects of these plans on traffic and transport is a central
step toward understanding their broader impact. Traffic and mobility patterns are among the
most immediate and observable areas of change following the implementation of a TCP. By
examining how traffic volumes, modal choices, and travel accessibility evolve, insight is gained
into whether these schemes genuinely alter behaviours or merely displace problems to
adjacent areas.
This category is particularly relevant because it allows for quantitative comparison between
cases, offering concrete metrics to assess effectiveness. It also provides a baseline for
evaluating secondary impacts on health, environment, or urban life. For instance, a reduction
in motor vehicle traffic is often a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for improvements in
air quality or pedestrian safety.
Yet, interpreting these transformations is far from straightforward. Traffic dynamics are
influenced by numerous external factors—urban design, enforcement, public acceptance, or
broader mobility trends and effects may vary significantly over time. That’s why this section will
not only look at average variations in traffic or modal shares, but also pay attention to
contextual nuances, differences between types of TCPs, and the distribution of effects within
and outside the intervention areas.
4.2.1 Thematic area 1: Variation in car traffic volumes
4.2.1.1 Global trends across all plans
Traffic reduction inside the delimited zone
Circulation plans implemented across diverse urban contexts consistently show a marked
reduction in car traffic volumes within the delimited zones. This effect is particularly strong in
LTNs, where traffic volumes on internal streets commonly decline by over 50%, with some
cases reporting reductions up to 75%. Superblocks and large-scale Traffic Circulation Plans
(TCPs) also demonstrate meaningful reductions, though generally more moderate (−8% to
−30%), depending on enforcement intensity and urban design constraints.
Notably, the magnitude of internal reduction is shaped by the typology and scale of the
intervention. LTNs achieve sharp traffic drops via strict localized filtering, while TCPs and
Superblocks, which often maintain some level of internal motorized access, rely more on
circulation reorganisation and deterrence. Nonetheless, the core principle of discouraging
through traffic is consistently effective across models.

Figure 10: Mean variation in car traffic aggregated by types of plans
Traffic variation on boundary roads
Impacts of circulation plans on streets adjacent to the intervention zones, so-called boundary
roads, are less uniform and more context dependent. In general, LTNs show the greatest
variability, with some boundary segments experiencing moderate traffic increases (eg LTN
East Oxford) while others remain stable or decrease. These differences appear closely tied to
local road hierarchies, existing congestion levels, and the configuration of modal filters.
By contrast, TCPs—particularly those applied at a citywide or district scale—more consistently
avoid negative spillovers. Cities like Ghent and Brussels report reductions of motorized traffic
of 8–20% on peripheral roads, attributed to the systemic nature of the intervention and
complementary infrastructure (ring roads, transit support). An exception is Leuven, where
boundary traffic rose by 9%, potentially due to weaker enforcement or incomplete coverage.
Superblocks may lead to small increases on adjacent streets (e.g. +2% in Poblenou), without
substantial redistribution or overload. However, the lack of available data for the other
superblocks prevents drawing further conclusions on this point.
Overall, while traffic displacement is a legitimate concern—particularly for LTNs—empirical
results indicate that well-designed circulation plans with multimodal support and broader
coverage can limit or even reverse boundary traffic increases.
-25%
-56%
-18%
-6% -6%
2%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
TCPs LTNs Superblocks
Mean variation in car traffic crossing the demarcated area
Mean variation in car traffic at the edge of the demarcated area

Maxime LOYANT 35
Table 5: Variation in car traffic volumes for the different areas studied
Zone Pre-
implementatio
n
measurement
s
Post-
implementatio
n
measurement
s
Variation
in car
traffic
crossing
the
demarcate
d area
Variation
in car
traffic at
the edge of
the
demarcate
d area
Source
TCP
Brussels
pentagone
October 2021 November
2023
-27% -20% (Descamps,
2023)
TCP Ghent
center
October 2016 October 2017 -17% -8% (Transport &
Mobility
Leuven,
2018)
TCP
Groningen
1977 1978 -47% No data
available
(Tsubohara
Shinji, 2007)
TCP
Leuven
May 2016 May 2017 -8% 9% (PolisNetwor
k, 2017)
LTN
Brunswick
park
November
2020
November
2021
-56% No
significant
changes
(Xiao et al.,
2023)
LTN
Canonbur
y East
July 2020 February 2021 -74% -22% (Yang et al.,
2022)
LTN
Clerkenwe
ll
August 2020 February 2021 -47% -18% (Yang et al.,
2022)
LTN East
Faraday
November
2020
November
2021
No
significant
changes
No
significant
changes
(Xiao et al.,
2023)
LTN East
Oxford
November
2021- May
2022
May 2022- Avril
2023
-56% 19% (Oxfordshire
County
Council,
2023)
LTN
Homerton
November
2019
November
2020
-40% -7% (Homerton
Council,
2021)
LTN North
Peckham
November
2020
November
2021
-61% No
significant
changes
(Xiao et al.,
2023)
LTN St
Peter's
June 2020 October 2020 -60% -4% (Yang et al.,
2022)
Superbloc
k Horta
2017-2018 2018-2019 No data
available
No data
available
Superbloc
k
Poblenou
July-December
2019
July-December
2021
-20% 2% (Nello-
Deakin,
2022)
Superbloc
k Sant
Antoni
2017-2018 2018-2019 -15% No data
available
(Ajuntament
de
Barcelona,
2022)

Figure 11: Variation in car traffic for the different plans studied
4.2.1.2 Detailed case studies
Across the three case studies, the degree of traffic volume reduction correlates strongly with
the scale, type, and strictness of circulation control measures implemented:
Spatial scale and systemic logic
• Ghent’s city-scale TCP, structured around sectorisation and enforced rerouting via the
R40 ring road, generated moderate but system-wide reductions (−17% during peak
hours). Its broad scope facilitated a global behavioural shift, especially during
congested periods.
• Islington’s LTNs, applied at neighbourhood level, achieved stronger reductions locally
(−58%) due to dense deployment of modal filters, but had less predictable impacts on
surrounding streets due to their fragmented application.
• The Sant Antoni Superblock, implemented over an entire neighbourhood, resulted in a
gradual but stable decrease (−21%) through reorganization of space rather than strict
traffic bans. This suggests that soft filtering, if combined with public space
transformation, can yield lasting behavioural change.
•

Maxime LOYANT 37
Nature and density of modal filtering
• Ghent’s sector model blocked direct crossings but maintained internal access; this
looser grid approach limited rat-running while allowing car use where necessary.
• Canonbury East used 10+ filters, including camera enforcement, which ensured
effective closure of through-routes. This dense filtering on a small area explains the
sharp drop in traffic.
• Sant Antoni adopted one-way loops and street redesign, achieving a balance between
access and deterrence, but with fewer physical filters, corresponding to a more
moderate decline in traffic.
•
Pre-existing car dependence
• LTNs showed the largest percentage drops, in part due to high initial volumes of cut-
through traffic. Removing this traffic leads to more immediate and visible effects.
• Superblocks and TCPs affected more mixed-mode environments, where traffic
reduction required deeper modal shift or time for adaptation.
Table 6: Detailed comparison for thematic area 1, variation in car traffic volume
Plan Ghent TCP Canonbury East Islington Sant Antoni
Superblock
Explanation
of the
indicators
used
Traffic volume was
measured through a
combination of data
collected in October–
November 2016
(baseline) and again in
2017 and 2018 :
• Intersection
counts on key
inbound and
outbound roads
during peak
hours.
• Vehicle class
counts on major
arteries by the
Flemish Traffic
Centre.
• License plate
recognition
surveys for flow
mapping and
trajectory
tracking.
Counts focused on
morning (7:30–8:30) and
evening (16:30–17:30)
peak hours
Traffic volumes were
monitored via:
• Automatic Traffic
Counts (ATCs) at
multiple internal and
boundary sites.
• Data normalized
using pre-COVID and
post-COVID monthly
traffic averages
(based on 2019–
2022 TfL data).
• Periods analyzed:
July 2020 (baseline),
July 2021 (pre-
consultation), and
July 2022 (final
monitoring).
Traffic volumes were
measured using direct
counts on main and
adjacent streets. The
city compared data
from 2017 (pre-
implementation) to
2019 and 2022,
accounting for
surrounding traffic
alternatives.
Results −17%, as average
decrease in motorized
traffic during peak
hours across entry/exit
points.
-58.2%, as average
decrease in motorized
traffic across internal
streets.
Traffic on Ecclesbourne Rd
dropped by 60%, with a total
83% decrease since 2020.
−15%, as average
decrease (2017–
2019) and −21%
(2017–2022) in
average daily traffic
(ADT), including
adjacent streets.

• Morning peak:
−20% at entry /
−12% at exit.
• Evening peak:
−16% at entry /
−24% at exit.
Greater reduction in
evening peaks suggests
behavioural adjustment
or modal shifts.
Limited traffic
evaporation observed,
indicating effective
suppression of through
traffic.
Minor rebounds observed on
certain streets, but overall
reductions remained strong.
Boundary road effects were
mixed:
• Southgate Rd North:
−20% (vs. baseline)
• Canonbury Rd:
+19% (likely
reversion to baseline
levels)
Decreases observed
on main intervention
street Comte Borrell
and surrounding roads
Viladomat and
Villarroel, suggesting
traffic evaporation
rather than
displacement.
Interpretation The design, based on
sectorisation and strong
physical filtering,
redirected flows toward
the R40 ring and led to a
substantial drop in car
use in the city centre,
especially during peak
congestion periods
The LTN in Canonbury East
achieved a marked reduction
in local traffic volumes. Some
rebound on surrounding
streets did occur but did not
offset the strong internal
decrease. Normalization
methods enhanced reliability,
although overlapping LTNs
and nearby construction
introduced some complexity
The Superblock's
hybrid approach—
limited car access,
partial filtering,
extensive pedestrian
space—achieved
meaningful traffic
reduction without
severe displacement.
Effects were
progressive, and the
design's flexibility
enabled adaptation
over time
4.2.1.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in car traffic volumes
The evaluation of traffic circulation plans shows a strong effort by cities to document the
evolution of motorized traffic flows. However, the analysis of available data also reveals
important methodological inconsistencies and missed opportunities for standardisation, which
limit cross-case comparison and undermine broader policy learning. Based on the cases
studied, several good practices worth replicating, recurring weaknesses, and practical
recommendations have been identified to improve future assessments.
Good practices observed
• Use of multiple complementary sources in Ghent (intersection counts, license plate
recognition, regional counters) allows cross-verification and offers a robust picture of
traffic evolution.
• Normalisation of data to control for external factors (e.g. Covid-19) is well-handled in
Islington, where Transport for London data from multiple years were used to adjust for
disruptions.
• Inclusion of nearby parallel streets in the Sant Antoni analysis provides a more realistic
view of traffic displacement and evaporation, not just internal changes.
Methodological gaps and limitations
• Coverage gaps: Some networks of counting points are incomplete (e.g. Ghent), leading
to underestimation or blind spots in traffic evolution.

Maxime LOYANT 39
• Inconsistent timeframes and metrics: Peak-hour counts, daily averages, vehicle-
kilometres and traffic intensities are all used interchangeably, making comparison
difficult.
• Lack of disaggregation by vehicle type (e.g. Large Good Vehicles, Heavy Goods
Vehicles), which is increasingly relevant given the rise of delivery traffic and logistical
impacts.
• Limited transparency on raw data and methods makes verification or replication
difficult.
• Overlapping interventions (e.g. multiple LTNs in Islington) complicate attribution of
impacts to a specific plan, especially without control zones.
4.2.1.4 Recommendations for better standardisation and proposal of indicator
To move toward a more rigorous and comparable evaluation framework, the following minimum
standards for future studies could be applied:
• Systematic spatial coverage: ensure counts at all main in/out points of the area, with
distinction between internal streets and boundary roads.
• Consistent timeframes: include both peak-hour and 24-hour averages, ideally on typical
weekdays over multiple weeks.
• Clear and unified indicators: report results in veh/day or veh/hour, disaggregated by
vehicle type.
• Use control areas with similar characteristics to distinguish local effects from general
trends.
• Open data and methodological transparency: provide technical annexes or raw
datasets to enable verification and reuse.
Table 7: Proposal of an indicator for car traffic volumes
The percentage of change in motor vehicles counts on main and residential roads
within the intervention area and on its boundaries, measured at the same period
over at least 2 years.
Measurement method:
• Automatic traffic counters or camera-based sensors, ideally disaggregated by
vehicle type.
• At least three representative streets per road category (arterial, distributor,
residential).
Definition of a positive outcome:
Around a 15% decrease in total car traffic within the intervention area compared to pre-
intervention baseline, without a proportional increase (>5%) on boundary or diversion routes.
Justification:
• 15% is a threshold commonly observed in successful cases (e.g. Ghent, LTNs in
London).
• Measuring the evolution over (at least) 2 years allow to better understand the trends
and change in behaviour.

4.2.2 Thematic area 2: Variation in modal shares
Compared to traffic volume, modal share is a less consistently explored field due to its reliance
on resource-intensive tools such as household travel surveys, mobility panels, or manual
counts. As a result, among the 14 mobility plans examined, only four ( Ghent, Leuven,
Groningen, and Barcelona) offer quantified pre/post modal share data, while others rely on
qualitative indicators or model-based projections.
Table 8: Variation in modal shares for the different areas studied
Pre-
implement
ation
measurem
ents
Post-
implement
ation
measurem
ents
Modal shares
before the traffic
plan
Modal shares after
the traffic plan
Source
C&
M
Bi
ke
PT Wa
lk
C&
M
Bi
ke
PT Wa
lk
TCP
Ghent
center
October
2016
October
2017
46
%
30
%
9% 15
%
39
%
35
%
14
%
13
%
(Transport
& Mobility
Leuven,
2018)
TCP
Groning
en
1977 1978 36
%
No
dat
a
17
%
No
dat
a
34
%
No
dat
a
21
%
No
dat
a
(Tsubohar
a Shinji,
2007)
TCP
Leuven
May 2016 May 2017 63
%
33
%
No
dat
a
No
dat
a
54
%
41
%
No
dat
a
No
dat
a
(PolisNet
work,
2017)
Superblo
cks
2016 Projection
based on
2018 data
26
%
2% 40
%
32
%
21
%
3% 41
%
35
%
(Mueller et
al., 2020)
C & M: Car and motocycle; PT: Public Transports
Despite these limitations, three main trends emerge across the available cases:
• TCPs in Ghent (Transport & Mobility Leuven, 2018), Leuven (PolisNetwork, 2017), and
Groningen (Tsubohara Shinji, 2007) all show a modal shift away from cars, primarily
towards cycling and, to a lesser extent, public transport. These results suggest that
circulation restrictions, when implemented at the city or district scale, can reconfigure
mobility behaviour,especially when supported by infrastructure changes and public
transport incentives.
• In Barcelona, projections under the Urban Mobility Plan 2013–2018 linked the
implementation of the Superblock model to a projected reduction in car use with a shift
to walk and public transport, in line with its strategy to reallocate road space and
enhance the pedestrian environment. These figures remain indicative but highlight the
model's ambition to induce structural modal change (Mueller et al., 2020).
• In contrast to TCPs and Superblocks, empirical data on modal shares after LTN
implementation is sparse. While quantitative modal split figures are rarely reported,
some studies document increased time spent in active travel (walking or cycling).
However, it remains unclear whether this reflects more people engaging in active travel
or existing active travellers spending more time walking or cycling (Low Traffic
Neighbourhoods Research Report, 2024).
This data gap may stem from the experimental and hyper-local nature of LTNs, which are often
introduced as low-cost trials without extensive pre/post travel behaviour monitoring. Moreover,

Maxime LOYANT 41
their limited spatial scale may render modal changes less visible at city scale, and less likely
to be captured by standard mobility surveys.
4.2.2.2 Detailed case studied
The degree of modal shift observed in Ghent and projected in Barcelona suggests that
circulation plans can influence travel behaviour significantly.
In Ghent, modal share changes were not solely the result of restricted car access. The plan’s
sectorisation model, which forced cars to use the R40 ring road, was coupled with substantial
investments in cycling infrastructure and maintained public transport accessibility. The modal
shift toward cycling and transit was especially pronounced in recreational, service, and
shopping trips, indicating that the plan altered not just commuting habits, but broader urban
mobility routines. Importantly, these changes were observed across both inner and outer city
residents, suggesting a citywide behavioural influence despite the geographically limited
intervention.
In contrast, the Superblock model in Barcelona relies on multifunctional redesign of streets,
prioritising pedestrian continuity, placemaking, and traffic evaporation through circulation filters
and urban quality improvements. Although modal share estimates are modelled rather than
measured, the predicted shifts—particularly in walking and transit use—reflect the impact of
spatial hierarchy inversion, where the street ceases to be a transport corridor and becomes a
destination.
A notable difference lies in scale and integration. Ghent's plan affected a larger urban network
with clear functional traffic rerouting, while the Superblock model is spatially granular but
embedded within a broader urban design logic. Both achieved modal rebalancing, but by
different mechanisms: Ghent through restrictive circulation logic, Barcelona through reclaiming
street space and environmental cues.
The absence of reliable data in LTNs, as noted in the global trends, likely reflects both their
experimental nature and limited spatial footprint, making large-scale modal shifts harder to
detect or attribute.
Table 9: Detailed comparison for thematic area 2, variation in modal shares
Plan Ghent TCP Sant Antoni Superblock
Explanation
of the
indicators
used
The modal split evolution was assessed using
two key sources:
• The Mobility Survey conducted among
residents in 2015 (pre-plan) and 2018
(post-plan).
• The Federal mobility diagnostic survey,
complemented by thematic analysis by
trip purpose and by place of residence
(inside or outside the R40 ring)
The modal shift was not based
on observed survey data but
derived from modelled
projections developed for the
Barcelona Urban Mobility Plan
(2013–2018). The models
estimated the impact of
citywide implementation of 503
Superblocks on daily mode
shares
Results Between 2015 and 2018, a clear shift towards
sustainable transport modes was observed:
• Car use (as driver): decrease from 40%
to 33%
• Cycling: increase from 30% to 35%
• Public transport: increase from 9% to
14%
• Walking: decrease slightly from 15% to
13%
Projected Results (2018
scenario):
• Car/motorcycle:
decrease from 26.1%
to 21.1%
• Public transport:
increase from 39.5% to
41.3%
• Cycling: increase
slightly from 2.1% to
2.5%

• Walking: increase from
32.3% to 35.1%
Interpretation Ghent’s circulation plan led to a measurable
modal shift away from private cars toward active
and public modes across trip purposes and
resident locations. The results were made
possible by combining traffic restrictions with
infrastructure upgrades and supporting surveys
with detailed pre/post comparisons
While Sant Antoni’s modal shift
remains unmeasured in
practice, Barcelona’s broader
strategy projects a significant
modal shift through structural
transformation of urban space,
re-prioritising sustainable
modes over private car use.
Additional
informations
Breakdowns by purpose:
• Commuting trips: Car use decreased
from 46% to 42%, while cycling rose from
30% to 34%.
• Leisure trips: Car use dropped from 47%
to 36%, cycling rose from 27% to 37%,
and public transport use increased from
6% to 10%.
• Shopping trips: Car use fell from 40% to
30%; cycling rose from 26% to 31%, and
public transport from 4% to 9%.
• School trips: Bicycle use rose from 49%
to 55%; car use fell from 14% to 11%.
Spatial dynamics:
• Residents within the R40 and outside
strongly increased cycling share (+5% for
both) and reduced car use (-7%)
These figures do not represent
direct measurements of
behavioural change post-
intervention in Sant Antoni itself
but rather theoretical
extrapolations. While they are
useful to illustrate the ambition
and potential of the Superblock
model, they should be
interpreted with caution
4.2.2.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in modal shares
• Ghent stands out as a model of robust modal share monitoring. The city conducted
pre/post mobility surveys with clear disaggregation by trip purpose and place of
residence, allowing a detailed interpretation of behavioural shifts.
• In Leuven, although more limited in scope, the city provided clear and comparable
pre/post modal split data that highlight a significant modal shift towards cycling
following the implementation of circulation changes.
• Barcelona’s superblock strategy made use of advanced modelling to project modal
shifts across the metropolitan area. Although modelled, the estimates are
comprehensive and integrate shifts in trip volumes, distances, and durations.
• Scarcity of post-intervention data: Among the 14 case studies reviewed, only four cities
reported pre/post modal share figures. Most others lacked the capacity or strategy to
capture modal shifts systematically, especially at the neighbourhood level.
• Overreliance on surveys: Modal share data are typically collected through household
mobility surveys, which are costly, infrequent, and rarely designed with circulation plan
evaluation in mind. This leads to a mismatch in timing, sample design, or geographic
focus.
• Lack of harmonisation: Definitions of what constitutes a “trip,” the treatment of
multimodal journeys, and whether figures represent trip counts or distance travelled
often vary—and are frequently unspecified.
• Modelled data without transparency: In the case of Barcelona, modal shift data are
derived from simulation models rather than observed travel behaviour. While valuable,

Maxime LOYANT 43
the underlying assumptions and confidence intervals are not consistently shared,
limiting interpretability.
• Absence of data for LTNs: Despite growing deployment across the UK, no LTN case
examined provided direct modal share data. Impact assessments tend to rely on
indirect indicators such as traffic counts or anecdotal evidence, which cannot confirm
a shift toward active or public transport.
• Make modal shift tracking a core component of circulation plan design. Pre/post
monitoring protocols should be built into project timelines and budgets, rather than
added reactively.
• Encourage the use of mixed methods: Combine household surveys with lighter but
scalable tools such as app-based tracking, intercept surveys, or passive data (e.g.,
mobile phone traces or bike counters).
• Disaggregate modal share data by trip purpose, user profile (resident, commuter), and
geography (within vs. outside intervention area) to understand context-specific impacts.
• Standardise definitions and formats across cities and studies. For example, ensure all
modal share data are reported as percentages of total trips (not distance or duration
unless specified), with consistent treatment of multimodal journeys.
• When modelled data are used (as in Barcelona), require disclosure of key assumptions,
scenario design, and uncertainty bounds to clarify how projections relate to real-world
behaviour.
Table 10: Proposal of an indicator for modal shares
Change in the share of trips made by walking, cycling, public transport and private
motor vehicles, based on representative travel surveys or app-based tracking data,
covering at least work/school and shopping trips
Measurement method:
• Travel diary surveys (e.g. household travel surveys), conducted before and at least
1 year after implementation.
• Complementary use of GPS/app data (e.g. Strava Metro, local mobility apps) for
cycling and walking.
A relative increase of at least 10 percentage points in the combined share of walking, cycling,
and public transport, with a corresponding drop in car mode share.
Justification:
• A modal shift is the clearest sign of behavioural change.
• 10 points is a meaningful threshold supported by several urban case studies (e.g.
Leuven, Ghent, Barcelona).
• Disaggregated analysis (by age, income, geography) is encouraged to assess equity
dimensions.

4.3 Effects of TCPs on health and environment
4.3.1 Thematic area 3: Variation in accidents and feeling of safety
Across the various circulation plans studied, there is strong and consistent evidence that road
traffic injuries tend to decrease following the implementation of mobility restriction schemes—
particularly in the areas directly targeted by these interventions.
• Quantitative assessments show the clearest reductions for LTNs. In London, for
instance, LTNs introduced in 2020 were associated with a 49% drop in traffic injuries
inside treated zones compared to the rest of the city, with particularly significant
reductions among pedestrians (-85%) and car occupants (-63%). Importantly, these
results were not matched by similar declines prior to implementation, suggesting a
strong causal link to the LTN measures themselves. Crucially, there was no evidence
of injury displacement to boundary roads, highlighting the localized benefit of such
schemes.
• Several TCPs also report safety improvements, though effects are more variable.
Brussels, under its 2022 “Good Move” plan, recorded a 26% reduction in accidents
within the city’s central Pentagon area, significantly outperforming the wider region,
where accidents declined by only 10.6%. However, a speed limit of 30 km/h was
implemented at the same time in this area of Brussels (2021) and could explain these
results. Ghent shows a more nuanced pattern: while the inner city saw a 17–26%
decline in injuries, accident trends on surrounding peripheral roads (such as the R40)
were more unstable. This suggests a potential shift in risk distribution that warrants
long-term monitoring.
In addition to statistical trends, perceived safety has emerged as a relevant, though under-
measured, outcome. Survey data from Ghent and Groningen indicate substantial increases in
the subjective sense of safety for both walking and cycling. In Ghent, for example, 49% of
residents felt walking had become safer after the plan, and 54% reported improved conditions
for cycling, with very low shares expressing the opposite view. Similarly, in Groningen, the
share of residents who "fully agreed" that conditions were safe rose by 10 percentage points
for pedestrians and 11 points for cyclists.
Table 11 : Variation in number of accidents
Zone Pre-
implementation
measurements
Post-
implementation
measurements
Variation
in the
number
of
accidents
Perception
of safety
Source
TCP
Brussels
pentagone
October 2021 November 2023 -26% No data (Descamps,
2023)
TCP
Ghent
center
October 2016 October 2018 -17% 49% of
respondents
stated that
walking had
become
safer,
compared to
8% who felt
it had
(Transport
& Mobility
Leuven,
2018)

Maxime LOYANT 45
become less
safe.
Similarly,
54%
believed
that cycling
conditions
had
improved,
while 8%
expressed a
more
negative
view
TCP
Groningen
1977 1978 No data The
proportion of
those who
fully agreed
that walking
conditions
were safe
increased
from 35% to
45%, and
the
equivalent
figure for
cycling rose
from 19% to
30%
(Tsubohara
Shinji,
2007)
LTN
London
2019 2020 -49% No data (Goodman
et al., 2021)
Ghent – Traffic Circulation Plan
The correlation between the design of the Ghent TCP and improved road safety appears
strong, particularly within the R40 ring road. Several features of the plan directly support this
outcome:
• Drastic reduction of through traffic in the city center by sectorising the area and banning
inter-sector car trips (except via the R40), led to measurable traffic decreases, reducing
conflict points between vehicles and vulnerable users.
• Expansion of car-free and pedestrian-priority zones contributed to lower pedestrian
exposure to motorised traffic, aligning with the observed 33% drop in injury victims
within the R40 between 2016 and 2018.
• Increased cycling mode share (+5%), combined with traffic calming measures and
clearer street hierarchy, likely made cycling safer — reflected both in the quantitative
injury data (declining or stable cyclist accidents) and the high perception of safety (54%
felt cycling had become safer).
• Similar trend on the R40 ring road, with a reduction of 34% in the number of victims of
injuries, although car traffic was rerouted, which highlight another major improvement
of the situation.

LTNs – London (2020)
LTNs also demonstrate a close link between their structural features and improved safety
outcomes:
• Use of modal filters and permeable street designs, often implemented through bollards
or ANPR-enforced camera gates, eliminated through traffic, reducing both vehicle
volume and speed within neighbourhoods.
• This translated into a 49% drop in total injuries, with particularly sharp declines for
pedestrians (−85%) and car occupants (−63%), suggesting that the removal of high-
speed cut-through traffic is especially beneficial for the most vulnerable road users.
• The absence of injury increases on boundary roads further supports the idea that well-
designed LTNs avoid displacement effects — a key concern in traffic calming debates.
• However, the lack of significant change for cyclists (−12%, not statistically significant)
may reflect a more complex risk profile: with higher cycling volumes due to the modal
shift, risk per cyclist may have declined, even if absolute injuries remained stable.
• Longer-standing LTNs (e.g., Waltham Forest) confirm this dynamic, with ~70% drop in
injuries and in risk per trip across all modes — reinforcing that sustained infrastructure
and behavioural change strengthen safety outcomes over time.
Table 12: Detailed comparison for thematic area 3, variation in accidents and safety feeling
Plan Ghent TCP LTN London
Explanation of
the indicators
used
Police-reported number of injury
victims data (April–October
2014–2018), analysed by road
user type and location (inside
R40 and on R40).
Complemented by residents’
safety perception surveys
Police-reported Road injury data (all
severities, by mode), geolocated to
distinguish between inside LTNs,
boundary roads, and rest of London.
Compared Oct–Dec 2018/2019 vs.
2020.
Results Within R40: total number of
injury victims reduction -33% in
2018 vs. 2016.
On R40: similar trends, with
34% 2018.
Perception: 49% of residents
feel walking is safer, 54% for
cycling.
Total injuries halved inside LTNs
(−49%). Reductions by mode:
• pedestrians −85%,
• car occupants −63%,
• cyclists −12% (non-
significant).
No change on boundary roads.
Results consistent across sensitivity
analyses, including KSI (killed or
seriously injured) cases.
Interpretation Statistically meaningful
decrease in central area and
border area, aligned with traffic
reduction. Resident perceptions
strongly positive, indicating
correlation between perceived
and actual safety gains.
Strong evidence of a causal link
between LTN implementation and
reduced injuries. No displacement
effect. The large drop for pedestrians
and car occupants is notable; cyclist
injury trends require more data for
confirmation.

Maxime LOYANT 47
4.3.1.3 Critical analysis in measuring changes in accidents and safety
• Cross-referencing of quantitative and qualitative data: Ghent and London both combine
police-recorded crash data with resident surveys, offering a more complete
understanding of both actual risk and perceived safety—a key determinant of active
travel uptake.
• Mode-specific injury tracking: The LTN evaluation disaggregates injuries by user type
(pedestrian, cyclist, car occupant), allowing targeted interpretation of impacts. This
level of granularity is rare but crucial for equity-informed analysis.
• Spatial mapping of crash data: In London, injuries are categorised by location (inside
LTN, boundary roads, rest of London), enabling detection of potential displacement
effects or protective zones.
• Longitudinal comparison with pre-existing trends: Studies on both Ghent and the LTNs
assess whether changes began before the intervention, helping to isolate the plan’s
causal impact
• Lack of data: Very few cities and plans evaluate the consequences of the
implementation of their policies on this indicator
• Lack of exposure-adjusted risk analysis: Most studies report changes in absolute injury
numbers without adjusting for variations in travel volume (e.g., more people cycling).
This issue limits understanding of risk per trip, especially important when modal shifts
are occurring.
• Short evaluation timeframes: In Ghent, trends were evaluated over just 1–2 years.
Fluctuations in crash data due to random events (e.g. weather, enforcement) may bias
results in the short term. Long-term trends are more robust but largely absent.
• Heterogeneous data formats: Differences in what is counted (e.g., types of injuries,
timeframes, vehicle categories) and how data are reported (maps, charts, tables)
hinder cross-city comparison.
• Systematically combine injury data with travel exposure data (e.g., trips per mode), to
evaluate changes in risk per user rather than only absolute numbers.
• Use consistent mode categories across all cities (e.g., separating cyclists,
micromobility users, pedestrians) and report injury severity tiers (slight, serious, fatal)
to enable more actionable comparisons.
• Implement shared spatial definitions (e.g., internal vs boundary roads) to evaluate
potential displacement or protective effects consistently across plans.
• Include standardised perception surveys to capture subjective safety outcomes,
especially for children, elderly, and marginalised groups who may experience
environments differently.
• Promote long-term data collection mandates (minimum 3–5 years post-
implementation), as in Ghent’s example, to reduce reliance on short-term variations
and enable stronger trend analysis.

Table 13: Proposal of indicators for variation in accidents
Indicator 1: Change in the number and severity of road traffic casualties (killed and
seriously injured, KSI) per mode, complemented by a perception-based safety
variation from local surveys.
Measurement method:
• Police-reported accident data (geolocated and disaggregated by mode and severity).
• Pre/post comparison over equivalent year periods, excluding confounding events
(e.g. COVID lockdowns).
• ≥25% reduction in total KSI inside the intervention area compared to pre-intervention
baseline.
Justification:
• KSI is the most robust and internationally standardised metric for road danger.
Indicator 2: Perception-based safety variation from local surveys.
Measurement method:
• Standardised resident perception survey using responses on walking and cycling
safety (e.g. "I feel safer walking/cycling in my neighbourhood")
• ≥50% of surveyed residents reporting an improvement in perceived safety (vs. ≤10%
reporting deterioration).
Justification:
• Combining objective safety (casualties) and subjective safety (perception) addresses
both actual risk and behavioural inhibitors to active mobility

Maxime LOYANT 49
4.3.2 Thematic area 4: Variation in air quality
Across the three types of schemes, a general trend emerges: restricting car access leads to
measurable improvements in air quality, especially regarding nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), a
pollutant directly linked to vehicular emissions. However, the magnitude, consistency, and
spatial distribution of improvements vary considerably again.
Figure 12: Mean variation in air quality for the different types of plans
• Citywide TCPs, such as in Ghent and Brussels, also led to significant improvements.
In Ghent, NO₂ levels decreased by an average of 18% across all stations, and up to
25% in the most central streets, with observed reductions greater than regional
background trends. Brussels saw similar drops, ranging from −12% to −20%,
particularly in high-density and vulnerable areas. These figures support the idea that
system-wide, centrally coordinated schemes can achieve substantial reductions in
urban air pollution
• In contrast, LTNs show more diverse gains, and often limited to the interiors of the
intervention zones. In London’s LTNs (e.g. St Peter’s, Canonbury East, Clerkenwell,
and Homerton), internal NO₂ reductions ranged from 5% to 40%. However, results on
boundary roads were mixed: some saw slight increases in NO₂ concentrations (+2–
3%), others remained unchanged, and a few even improved. The Oxford LTNs follow
the same trend, with a 23.8% reduction inside the zone, but a 10% increase on certain
adjacent streets. These patterns highlight the sensitivity of air quality benefits to
network permeability and vehicle rerouting.
• Superblocks show the most pronounced and consistent improvements. In Barcelona’s
Sant Antoni and Horta superblocks, NO₂ concentrations fell by 31–33%, with
accompanying drops in PM₁₀ (−10 to −25%) and PM₂.₅ (−7%). In Horta, air quality
inside the intervention area reached levels comparable to citywide background
concentrations. These results suggest that space reallocation on a neighbourhood
scale can strongly reduce exposure to traffic-related pollutants.
-17%
-21,46%
-24,29%
-8% -8,16%
No data
available
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
TCPs LTNs Superblocks
Mean variation in NO2 concentration
Variation in NO2 concentration in the demarcated area
Variation in NO2 concentration at the edge of the demarcated area

Qualitative assessments align broadly with measured results. In Groningen, perceived air
pollution declined substantially post-TCP, both for residents and visitors. In Barcelona, focus
groups in Poblenou and Horta reported perceived improvements in air quality within
superblocks, but persistent concerns about increased pollution on nearby streets. Finally, while
most interventions successfully reduce NO₂, reductions in PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅ are generally less
marked, as these pollutants derive from a broader array of sources beyond road traffic (e.g.
heating, industry, regional transport).
Table 14: Variation in air quality
Zone Pre-
implem
entatio
n
measur
ements
Post-
implem
entatio
n
measur
ements
Variation
in NO2
concentrat
ion in the
demarcate
d area
Variation
in NO2
concentr
ation at
the edge
of the
demarcat
ed area
Variation
in PM10
concentr
ation in
the
demarcat
ed area
Perception of air
quality change
Sourc
e
TCP
Brus
sels
pent
agon
e
October
2021
Novemb
er 2023
-16% No data No data No data (Desca
mps,
2024)
TCP
Ghe
nt
cent
er
October
2016
October
2017
-18% -8% No data No data (Trans
port &
Mobilit
y
Leuve
n,
2018)
TCP
Gron
inge
n
1977 1978 No data No data No data Investigation,
whose objects
were residents of
the inner city,
showed that those
who sensed odour
from traffic had
decreased from
37% to 27% in
walking and from
57% to 38% in
cycling. Also among
visitors from the
region, those who
sensed odour had
decreased from
43% to 24%.
(Tsubo
hara
Shinji,
2007)
LTN
Can
onbu
ry
East
July
2020
Februar
y 2021
-5,0% 3,1% No data No data (Yang
et al.,
2022)
LTN
Cler
ken
well
August
2020
Februar
y 2021
-5,0% 2,6% No data No data (Yang
et al.,
2022)

Maxime LOYANT 51
LTN
St
Pete
r's
June
2020
October
2020
-15,0% -2,9% No data No data (Yang
et al.,
2022)
LTN
Hom
erto
n
June
2020
Novemb
er 2019
-40% -22% No data No data (Home
rton
Counci
l,
2021)
LTN
East
Oxfo
rd
Novemb
er 2021-
May
2022
May
2022-
Avril
2023
-23,8% Mixed
Results
No data No data (Oxfor
dshire
County
Counci
l,
2023)
Supe
rbloc
k
Hort
a
2017-
2018
2018-
2019
-31% No data -25% Around 50% of
residents reported
that pollution had
decreased within
the superblock
itself. However,
perceptions were
more negative
concerning
boundary streets:
only 15% of men
and 10% of women
believed air quality
had improved in
these areas, while
28% of the
population felt
pollution had
worsened around
the perimeter
(ASPB
, 2021)
Supe
rbloc
k
Pobl
enou
July-
Decemb
er 2019
July-
Decemb
er 2021
No data No data No data A series of focus
groups involving
various community
profiles (youth,
parents, elderly
residents, workers,
etc.) indicated
broad consensus
that they perceived
better air quality.
However, several
respondents feared
that traffic (and
pollution) may have
increased in the
surrounding
streets
(ASPB
, 2021)
Supe
rbloc
k
Sant
Anto
ni
2017-
2018
2018-
2019
-33% No data -10% No data (ASPB
, 2021)

Clear differences in air quality outcomes align with the scale, structure, and integration of each
plan:
• Ghent’s citywide TCP produced wide-scale air quality benefits, especially in fully
pedestrianized and low-traffic streets. However, the plan’s network restructuring
suggest induced localised trade-offs, with increased pollution on certain boundary
roads such as the R40.
• LTNs, being localized and often implemented with minimal complementary measures,
generated clear internal benefits, but inconsistent effects on surrounding areas. The
effectiveness and fairness of LTNs thus depend heavily on urban layout, permeability,
and accompanying traffic calming on boundary roads.
• Superblocks like Sant Antoni deliver the most consistent and substantial gains. Their
comprehensive street pacification, reduction of through-traffic, and redesign of public
space foster significant emission reductions and environmental improvement,
supported by both data and public perception.
Table 15: Detailed comparison for thematic area 4, variation in air quality
Plan Ghent TCP Islington LTN Sant Antoni
Superblock
Explanation of the
indicators used
Combination of
modelled air quality
estimates and
measured NO₂ levels
before (2016–2017)
and after (2017–2018)
implementation. PM₁₀
and PM₂.₅ estimates
based on modelled
changes from traffic
data across 49
locations
Monthly NO₂
concentrations
measured with passive
diffusion tubes from
July 2019 to early 2021
at 93 sites. Sites were
categorized as internal,
boundary, or external.
Effects estimated using
a Difference-in-
Differences (DiD)
model
Air quality assessed via
direct measurements
of NO₂ and PM₁₀
concentrations pre-
and post-
implementation (2017–
2018), corrected using
a fixed reference
station to account for
meteorological
variation.
Results • Measured NO₂:
average reduction
of 18% across all
sites (7.4 µg/m³), -
8% on the Ring
• Modelled NO₂:
−27% in car-free
streets; −19% in
residential streets;
+8% on the R40
(due to rerouted
traffic).
• Modelled PM₁₀:
−9% in car-free
streets, −6% in
residential streets,
+4% on the R40.
• Modelled PM₂.₅:
−11% in car-free
streets, −7% in
residential streets,
+5% on the R40.
• St Peter’s: NO₂
reduced by 15%
inside the LTN and
2.9% on boundary
streets.
• Canonbury East &
Clerkenwell: NO₂
reduced by 5%
inside, +2–3%
increase on
boundary roads.
• Overall estimated
effect: −8.9% at
boundary sites,
−5.7% at internal
sites (vs. external
controls).
• NO₂ decreased by
25% (−14.6 µg/m³)
• PM₁₀ decreased
by 17% (−4.1
µg/m³)
• Post-intervention
NO₂ levels
reached those of a
background (non-
traffic) area.
• Positive perception
of air quality by
residents through
ethnographic
assessments.

Maxime LOYANT 53
Interpretation The TCP significantly
improved air quality in
central, pacified areas.
Moreover, measured
results on the R40
(decrease in NO₂)
suggest no traffic
displacement. The
combination of
measured and
modeled data provides
both validation and
detail on spatial
variation
LTN schemes reduced
NO₂ within their zones,
confirming local
pollution benefits.
However, boundary
impacts were mixed,
with some areas
showing stagnation or
slight increases, likely
due to rerouted traffic.
The DiD approach
adds robustness to the
analysis.
The superblock
produced strong,
localized
improvements in air
quality, particularly for
NO₂. The alignment
with background levels
suggests a significant
reduction in vehicular
emissions at the
intervention site.
Residents’ positive
perceptions further
support the
quantitative evidence.
4.3.2.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in air quality
Several cities have implemented robust monitoring frameworks, combining pre/post
intervention measurements, spatial comparisons, and qualitative perception surveys.
• In Ghent, NO₂ and PM levels were tracked via both modelling and passive sampling,
covering 49 points across diverse street typologies.
• Sant Antoni (Barcelona) stands out for its use of corrected measurements (with
reference stations) and spatially localized sensors and included mobile sensors and
public health agency involvement (ASPB), supporting scientific rigor.
• Islington (LTNs) employed passive NO₂ diffusion tubes and a difference-in-differences
(DiD) methodology, comparing treated, boundary, and control areas.
• Inconsistent indicators: Some monitor only NO₂, others also PM₁₀/PM₂.₅; black carbon
is rarely measured.
• Limited post-intervention duration: Many datasets cover only a few months, making
them sensitive to meteorological anomalies.
• Uneven spatial coverage: Measurements often focus on core zones, with boundary and
displaced effects underexplored.
• Lack of normalization: Results are sometimes reported without correction for
background pollution trends or weather, hampering comparability.
• Neglect of health impact linkage: Few cities attempt to quantify health co-benefits (e.g.
avoided mortality or morbidity), despite strong relevance.
• Prioritise NO₂ as core pollutant, due to its direct link with road traffic and short
atmospheric lifetime.
• Include control zones or reference sites to correct for external trends and enable causal
attribution.
• Combine fixed stations, diffusion tubes, and mobile monitoring to capture both long-
term trends and spatial granularity.
• Publish standardized reporting templates, including baseline level, % variation,
meteorological context, and street typology.
• Integrate qualitative perception surveys to complement technical data, especially
where coverage is limited.

Table 16: Proposal of indicators for air quality
Indicator 1: Mean change in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentrations (µg/m³) measured
at multiple fixed and passive monitoring sites inside and at the boundaries of the
intervention area.
Measurement method:
• Passive diffusion tubes (monthly) and/or automatic stations (hourly), covering at
least:
o ≥2 points inside the plan area
o ≥2 points on boundary roads
o ≥1 control point outside the area
• Measurement over at least a year pre/post.
• Seasonal and meteorological adjustments applied based on reference stations.
• ≥15% reduction in annual average NO₂ concentrations within the intervention area.
• No increase >5% on boundary sites compared to control locations.
Justification:
• NO₂ is the most sensitive and traffic-related pollutant, widely used across studies.
• Thresholds reflect average observed gains in Ghent, Barcelona, Oxford, and
Islington.
Indicator 2: Mean change in particulate matter (PM2,5 and/or PM10) concentrations
(µg/m³) measured at multiple fixed and passive monitoring sites inside and at the
boundaries of the intervention area.
Measurement method:
• Passive diffusion tubes (monthly) and/or automatic stations (hourly), covering at
least:
• Measurement over at least a year pre/post.
• Seasonal and meteorological adjustments applied based on reference stations.
• ≥10% reduction in annual average PM10 concentrations within the intervention area.
• No increase >5% on boundary sites compared to control locations.
Justification:
• PM₂.₅/PM₁₀ can be added where data allow but are more affected by regional
background levels.
• Thresholds reflect average observed gains in Ghent, Barcelona, Oxford, and
Islington.

Maxime LOYANT 55
4.3.3 Thematic area 5: Variation in noise exposure
There are not many existing measures of noise exposition variation but cross the various case
studies which examined it, noise pollution was consistently found to decrease following the
implementation of TCPs, LTNs and Superblocks
Quantitative results
In Groningen, noise was measured at 29 locations within the city centre before and after the
circulation plan. The average noise level dropped from 67.0 dB(A) to 64.1 dB(A), a reduction
of nearly 3 dB(A), which is often considered to halve perceived noise intensity. Additionally, the
proportion of streets exposed to levels over 65 dB(A)—a commonly cited threshold for harmful
exposure—decreased significantly (Tsubohara Shinji, 2007).In Brussels, the Good Move
Pentagone plan was associated with a reduction of at least 2 decibels in the most densely
populated areas of the central city. Although detailed disaggregated data by street were not
available, these reductions are substantial, particularly in environments with high population
density, where marginal improvements in ambient noise can have notable effects on public
health and well-being (Descamps, 2024).
In the case of Oxford, a recent study evaluated multiple LTN sites using acoustic energy and
LAeq indicators. The findings suggest that most locations experienced a reduction in noise
following LTN implementation. Nevertheless, sound source analysis revealed that
anthropogenic (human-generated) noise declined across all locations studied—by
approximately 10%, with even greater reductions within LTN boundaries. Interestingly, biotic
sounds (e.g., birdsong) increased, pointing to improvements in the overall soundscape. While
the authors noted possible confounding factors (seasonal variations, COVID-19 effects), the
overall trend supports the idea that LTNs contribute to quieter, more pleasant urban
environments (Leach et al., 2024).
The Sant Antoni Superblock in Barcelona also showed measurable changes. Between 2017
and 2019, average daytime decibel levels dropped by 3.5 dB(A). However, the data indicated
no significant change in nighttime noise levels. This may reflect either limitations on the extent
of traffic reduction during evening hours or the persistence of other sources of noise such as
leisure activities and deliveries (ASPB, n.d.).
Overall, these results align with expectations: where car traffic decreases significantly, noise
levels follow. TCPs and Superblocks, which intervene at a broader spatial scale, seem to
achieve consistent improvements within targeted areas. LTNs, despite their more limited
scope, can still produce tangible soundscape benefits, although some increases may occur at
the edges.
Qualitative results
In the Horta Superblock, a survey conducted with 1200 people before the intervention and 835
respondents after the intervention (September 2020) revealed that a substantial portion of
residents noticed improvements in noise levels within the superblock. Approximately 45% of
women and 50% of men reported that noise had decreased in the area. However, this
perception did not extend to the streets surrounding the superblock, with only 10% of women
and 15% of men feeling that the noise had decreased outside the intervention area. Notably,
23% of the population felt that noise had increased in the surrounding streets, which aligns
with the concern of traffic displacement. Similarly, about 28% of respondents felt that pollution
had worsened in the surrounding areas, further suggesting that while the superblock

significantly improved the inner area, there were concerns about spillover effects (ASPB,
2021).
In Poblenou, a focus group study with various population profiles—such as young people,
elderly, and workers—highlighted a positive impact on noise pollution. Participants generally
agreed that the reduction in motor vehicles led to a decrease in noise pollution, which in turn
positively impacted health (Tiran & Sazu, 2023).
Similarly, in Groningen, the reduction of noise pollution was also reflected in residents'
perceptions. A significant portion of the population experienced less disturbance from traffic
noise after the traffic circulation plan was implemented. Specifically, the percentage of people
reporting "serious nuisance of noise" from traffic dropped from 10% to 5%, reinforcing the
positive impact of reduced vehicular traffic on the urban acoustic environment (Tsubohara
Shinji, 2007).
However, for all plans but especially for LTNs, the available data is sparse. While quantitative
studies on air quality are becoming more common, the perception of noise reduction or
increased quietness in LTN zones has not been as thoroughly documented. This gap in data
is significant, as understanding how residents perceive changes in noise pollution is crucial to
assessing the full benefits of LTNs. Many of the LTNs studied focus on traffic volume
reductions, but less attention has been paid to how these changes are felt by local
communities, particularly in terms of noise and overall quality of life.
Table 17: Variation in noise exposure
Zone Pre-
implementatio
n
measurements
Post-
implementatio
n
measurements
Measured
noise
exposure
Perception of
noise exposure
Source
TCP
Brussels
pentagone
October 2021 November 2023 -2 dB No data (Descamps
, 2024)
TCP
Groningen
1977 1978 -3 dB(A) on
average
(From 67,0 to
64,1)
No data (Tsubohara
Shinji,
2007)
LTN
Oxford
November
2021- May 2022
May 2022- Avril
2023
-10% on
average
No data (Oxfordshir
e County
Council,
2023)
Superbloc
k Horta
2017-2018 2018-2019 No data Noise variation in
the intervened
area:
• 45% of
the
women
and 50%
of the
men
thought
that the
noise had
decrease
d
Noise variation in
the boundaries:
(ASPB,
2021)

Maxime LOYANT 57
• 15% of
men and
10%
women
thought
that noise
had
decrease
d
• 23% of
the
populatio
n thought
that noise
had
increased
Superbloc
k Sant
Antoni
2017-2018 2018-2019 • -3,5
dB(A)
during
day
• Remaine
d the
same
during
night
No data (ASPB,
2021)
4.3.3.2 Critical analyzis in measuring variation in noise exposure
• A few plans, such as in Groningen, Oxford, and Barcelona, have included direct
acoustic measurements using decibel levels (dB(A)) pre- and post-intervention.
• Some studies have combined quantitative data with perception surveys, capturing both
objective change and lived experience of noise.
• Almost all case studies lack any data on noise exposure, making it one of the least
evaluated dimensions.
• Where noise is measured, data often lacks spatial granularity or disaggregation (e.g.
daytime vs nighttime, boundary vs core zones).
• Little standardization exists in instrumentation, timing, or location of measurements,
limiting comparability across cases.
• Systematically integrate pre/post noise monitoring into all urban circulation projects
using calibrated dB(A) sound level meters.
• Differentiate between daytime and nighttime levels and include boundary zones to
detect possible displacement effects.
• Complement measurements with resident surveys on perceived noise, to triangulate
physical data with subjective experience

Table 18: Proposal of an indicator for variation in noise exposure
Indicator 1: Change in average daytime noise levels (LAeq, 16h) at fixed monitoring
points inside and around the intervention area
Measurement method:
• Continuous acoustic monitoring at:
• LAeq,16h (equivalent continuous sound level from 7:00 to 23:00), expressed in dB(A)
• Measurements over at least a year pre- and post-intervention, ideally covering the
same seasons
• ≥2 dB(A) reduction in LAeq,16h at internal monitoring points
• No increase >1 dB(A) at boundary points
Justification:
• A 3 dB(A) drop is often perceived as halving noise intensity; even smaller reductions
have significant health effects.
• LAeq,16h is standard in urban environmental noise assessment (used in EU noise
maps).
• Based on documented cases in Groningen, Brussels, and Superblocks like Sant
Antoni.
Indicator 2: Perception-based safety variation from local surveys.
Measurement method:
• Qualitative data from perception surveys (e.g. % of respondents perceiving “less
noise”)
• ≥50% of surveyed residents reporting an improvement in perceived noise (vs. ≤10%
Justification:
• Combining objective measurements (variation in noise level) and subjective
appreciation (perception) addresses both actual risk and perceived improvement

Maxime LOYANT 59
4.4 Effects of TCPs on economic activity and social acceptance
4.4.1 Thematic area 6: Impacts on economic activity
Evaluating the economic consequences of TCPs, LTNs and Superblocks remains a critical but
underdeveloped area of research. Unlike mobility or environmental fields, economic impacts
are more difficult to isolate and quantify — especially in the short term — and are often
influenced by broader structural trends such as e-commerce, inflation, or tourism cycles.
Nonetheless, a few case studies provide valuable insights.
A first and important observation is the paucity of systematically collected and comparable
data:
• For LTNs, no peer-reviewed studies have yet assessed economic impacts on
businesses or commercial areas. While some reports hypothesize potential positive
effects (e.g. increased footfall, property values), these remain largely speculative.
Concerns about displaced car-dependent customers or increased delivery costs are
also raised, but without empirical validation (Ipsos, 2024).
• In the case of Superblocks, some qualitative claims and internal evaluations suggest
commercial activity inside pedestrian-prioritised zones increased by 15% to 60% in
Barcelona (Jordà, 2023). However, detailed methodologies and consistent baselines
are rarely published, making it difficult to independently assess causality or generalise
results.
• TCPs show greater depth. In Ghent and Brussels, local authorities and research
institutes have produced relatively robust evaluations — including administrative data,
business surveys, consumer behaviour analysis, and even econometric modelling.
These remain exceptions.
Where data is available, economic collapse feared by opponents has not materialised. In some
cases, growth has occurred despite—or possibly because of—the traffic interventions:
• In Ghent, business start-ups and net growth in retail and hospitality increased after the
TCP, especially in the central postcode 9000 (Transport & Mobility Leuven, 2018). A
separate academic study using firm-level financial data found statistically significant
improvements in Return on Equity (ROE) for retail firms within the affected zone (Bonte,
2020).
• In Brussels, bank card transaction data show that spending increased by 9.9% in the
Pentagone (city centre) in 2023, slightly above the inflation rate. Moreover, residents
now represent a larger share of this spending, indicating shifting patterns in client bases
(Hendrickx, 2024).

4.4.1.2 Detailed case study: Ghent’s TCP
To assess the economic impact of the TCP in Ghent, two complementary approaches were
used:
Table 19: Variation on economic activity in Ghent
Indicator
used for the
evaluation
Business
Dynamics
(citywide data)
Consumer Behaviour and
Footfall
Business Performance
(firm-level econometric
analysis)
Results • Start-ups
increased by
17% in Ghent in
2018 (post-
TCP) compared
to 2017, well
above the
Flemish
average of +9%.
• Bankruptcies fell
by 36%, again
significantly
outperforming
regional trends
(-6% in
Flanders).
• In the central
postcode 9000
(most impacted
by the TCP),
retail and
hospitality start-
ups rose by
20%, while
closures fell by
7%.
• Pedestrian counts show
stable or increasing
footfall in several
secondary commercial
streets (e.g.
Brabantdam), while
some high streets (e.g.
Veldstraat) experienced
minor declines
• 65% of residents said
their shopping frequency
in the city centre
remained unchanged;
30% reported shopping
less (which seems
incoherent with the
pedestrian counts), and
5% more.
Main reasons for
reduced visits: difficulty
accessing the city by car
and expensive parking.
These concerns were
concentrated among
suburban residents aged
45–54 living <25 minutes
away.
• In the retail and
wholesale sector, the
study finds a statistically
significant positive
effect of the TCP on
Return on Equity
(ROE). No significant
effect was found for
Return on Assets (ROA)
• In the food and
accommodation sector,
no statistically
significant effects were
detected. In some
specifications,
coefficients were
negative, but similar
trends were found in the
control cities —
suggesting no direct link
to the TCP.
Interpretation There is no evidence
of a slowdown in
economic activity or
entrepreneurship
following the
implementation of
the TCP. On the
contrary, central
Ghent experienced
robust business
growth during this
period.
The TCP likely restructured
commercial flows rather than
causing a drop-in overall
activity. It may have improved
footfall in previously
underused areas while
raising accessibility concerns
among some suburban
shoppers. However, online
retail trends likely played a
large role in observed shifts
in spending patterns
The TCP may have
positively affected retail
business performance but
had neutral or inconclusive
effects on restaurants and
hotels. This could reflect
structural factors in each
sector — e.g., tourists may
not be deterred by car
restrictions, while retailers
may benefit from a more
pedestrian-friendly
environment
Methodology Tracks trends in
entrepreneurship
(start-ups, closures,
bankruptcies).
(Transport & Mobility
Leuven, 2018)
• Pedestrian counts on
main and secondary
commercial streets
• Surveys on shopping
behaviour and perceived
accessibility.
(Transport & Mobility Leuven,
2018)
Econometric modelling
using Difference in
differences approach to
assess financial
performance (ROE, ROA)
of businesses in affected vs.
non-affected areas.
(Bonte, 2020)

Maxime LOYANT 61
There is no clear evidence that the TCP negatively impacted Ghent’s local economy.
• Overall entrepreneurial activity increased after the plan.
• Retailers in the inner city performed better, according to firm-level financial data.
• Concerns about accessibility from some visitors were real, but they did not translate
into a measurable downturn in business creation or survival.
• Spending shifted in location and format, with more e-commerce and a redistribution
from central flagship streets to other areas.
• Food and accommodation sectors may have faced challenges unrelated to mobility
measures.
Ghent remains the only TCP case among the studied examples for which robust economic
data, both aggregate and firm-specific, is available. The evidence suggests that a well-
designed circulation plan, when paired with urban renewal and communication efforts, does
not harm and may support local economic vitality, at least in sectors well-aligned with walkable,
central environments.
4.4.1.3 Critical analysis in measuring variation in economic activity
• Ghent stands out for integrating multiple sources: administrative business data (start-
ups, bankruptcies), sector-specific trends (retail and hospitality), footfall counts, and
consumer behaviour surveys.
• The use of Return on Equity (ROE) in a quasi-experimental model adds depth and
more perspective to impact assessment, providing rare firm-level insight.
• Brussels leverages real-time bank transaction data to track commercial vitality, an
approach replicable and quite precise
• From a global perspective, this indicator is a major blind spot in almost all evaluations.
Especially, for LTNs and Superblocks, no rigorous, peer-reviewed studies exist on
economic effects.
• Where data exists, it often lacks counterfactuals (e.g. comparison with similar zones
unaffected by the plan) or basic methodological description, limiting causal inference.
• Economic indicators are rarely disaggregated by business type, size, or location
(central vs. peripheral), obscuring distributional impacts.
• Require cities to define clear economic hypotheses and objectives pre-implementation
(e.g. expected impact on specific sectors or zones)
• Encourage collaboration with national statistics offices or independent evaluators to
ensure transparency and comparability
Table 20: Proposal of economic indicators
Combination of 3 complementary metrics:
1. Net business growth rate in the intervention area (openings minus closures), by
sector (retail, F&B, services)
Measurement method
• Data: local business registry
• Pre/post comparison on a yearly basis over at least 3 years

Stability in net business count, and/or growth above citywide average
2. Variation in sales revenue
Measurement method
• Surveys with local owners and/or bank data
Increase or maintain in revenue post-implementation, or performance above similar control
zones
3. Variation in average daily pedestrian counts on key commercial streets
Measurement method
• Automatic sensors or manual counts
• Pre/post comparison excluding event days
≥5% sustained increase in footfall, or redistribution towards newly
pedestrianised/commercial streets

Maxime LOYANT 63
4.4.2 Thematic area 7: Social acceptance and well-being
Across different types of mobility interventions—TCPs, Superblocks, and LTNs—social
acceptance emerges as a diverse and multifaceted dimension, reflecting variations by context,
target groups, and phase of deployment. Although public sentiment is rarely uniform, certain
common patterns can be clearly identified:
1. Perceived improvements in livability and quality of life
Across most plans, between 45 % and 60 % of residents report feeling that streets are more
pleasant, quieter, and familiar, and that walking and cycling have become easier or safer. This
pattern is visible in Islington’s LTNs (e.g., St Peter’s: ~49–50 % find streets nicer; ~47 % hear
less noise), in the Horta superblock (women: 45 %, men: 55 % report improved well-being),
and in Sant Antoni, where ethnographic observations described streets as now “full of life” and
“comfortable.”
2. Strong contextual differences and spillover effects
Evaluation often reveals spatial patterns within city zones. In Ghent, central residents, those
inside the R40, are more likely to support the TCP than those nearby. In LTNs, individuals
report improved conditions within the scheme, but boundary roads are often noted as
experiencing increased traffic or noise. For instance, at Canonbury East, ~24–27 % voiced
concerns about spillover effects onto adjacent streets.
3. Awareness vs. engagement
Public awareness is uneven: in some LTNs only one-third of residents recognize the scheme,
though support often exceeds 40 %. Participation in consultations is modest (~13–17 %),
though when engaged, a majority feel heard. In Brussels, back-to-back public meetings (>80)
were praised as critical for supporting Good Move, reinforcing the importance of inclusive
dialogue.
4. Polarization by demographic groups
Age and car access affect attitudes: older adults (e.g. > 65 yrs in Ghent) tend to be more critical
(50 %), while younger adults are more positive. Similarly, in LTN surveys, car-owning
households reported greater negative impacts on convenience, but also saw increased active
travel (~27–28 % shifted transport modes).
5. Trade-offs in perception
Residents often report dual effects, positive on local livability, but concerns about longer trips
or crowded boundary roads. In St Peter’s, while ~48 % felt less traffic noise inside, ~23 %
perceived increased congestion nearby; similarly, ~36 % reported slower trips.
In summary, social acceptance tends to be moderately positive overall (around 40–60 %
favorable assessments), with the strongest support from those living inside intervention zones.
Yet concerns persist about boundary impacts, user awareness, and uneven engagement.
These findings emphasize the value of robust participatory approaches, continuous
communication, and targeted monitoring of public sentiment.

Table 21: Variation in social acceptance across the different cases
Zone Positive perception (%) Negative perception (%) Observations
TCP
Brussels
> 80 public meetings
supported planning and
acceptance
Little specific negative %,
general caution noted
Robust
participatory
process likely
aided acceptance
TCP Ghent 50 % overall think TCP is
“good”; 46 % inside R40
see improved traffic
quality; 35 % say public
transport is easier/more
comfortable/safe
30 % overall negative;
32 % around R40; 22 %
feel drivers less safe;
68 % think driving comfort
decreased
High acceptance
among central
residents; older
age groups more
critical
TCP
Groningen
Residents reported less
noise and traffic nuisance;
specific % drop from 10 %
to 5 % reporting serious
noise nuisance
No quantitative negative
data found
Positive
perceptions tied to
reduced noise
LTN St
Peter’s
49 % streets look nicer;
48 % air cleaner; 47 %
less noise; 46 % easier to
walk/cycle; 46 % feel safer
by day
20 % disagree streets
nicer; 18 % disagree air
cleaner; 23 % disagree
less noise; 25 % disagree
feel safer during day;
34 % disagree at night;
18 % note increased
traffic on boundary roads
Strong positive
sentiment
internally;
boundary concerns
exist
LTN
Canonbury
East
47 % easier to cross; 46 %
streets look nicer; 45 % air
cleaner; 45 % easier
walking/cycling
27 % disagree crossing
easier; 25 % disagree
streets nicer; 22 %
disagree air cleaner; 24 %
disagree modal shift;
27 % report boundary
traffic increased
Mixed perceptions,
boundary issues
noted
Superblock
Horta
55 % men and 45 %
women report increased
well-being; > 60 % say
walking comfort improved;
~75 % say stroller
accessibility improved
Minority reported stress
crossing streets due to
vehicles; exact % not
specified
Strong general
satisfaction, with
some location-
specific drawbacks
Superblock
Poblenou
Worker focus groups:
calmer spaces, mental
health benefits; women
reported improved social
interaction
Some women described
the area as “deserted”
and insecure; data limited
Mixed perceptions;
strong social
benefits for some
groups
Superblock
Sant Antoni
Ethnographic
observations: area “full of
life,” “comfortable,” safer
for families
Some parents reported
“false sense of security”
due to nearby vehicles;
exact % N/A
Predominantly
positive, some
cautious feedback
from parents

Maxime LOYANT 65
The evaluation of social acceptance and perceived well-being across Ghent, Islington, and
Sant Antoni reveals important methodological and outcome differences. Ghent stands out with
repeated, representative surveys in 2017 and 2018, allowing robust tracking of changing public
opinion. The data shows sustained moderate approval (~50 %), stronger positive perceptions
within the core intervention zone (R40), and stable ambivalence outside it. In comparison,
Islington’s LTN evaluations used structured consultations with mixed, polarized responses,
while Sant Antoni employed ethnographic observations to capture qualitative gains in comfort
and social atmosphere. All three cases indicate improved satisfaction within intervention
zones, although opposition, concerns about displacement, and demographic variation persist,
shaped by engagement strategy, implementation design, and spatial configuration.
Table 22: Detailed comparison for indicator 7, variation in social acceptance and well being
Plan Ghent TCP Islington LTN Sant Antoni
Superblock
Explanation of the
indicator
Analysis based on
large-scale mobility
surveys (2017,
2018), assessing
perceived quality of
traffic, comfort,
safety, and overall
plan approval across
different
demographic and
geographic groups
Evaluated via
borough-level
surveys and
consultations with
weighted
demographic
corrections. Key
questions addressed
air quality, traffic
noise, comfort,
mobility, safety, and
personal impacts
Evaluated via
ethnographic
methods and focus
groups. Residents
assessed street
atmosphere, safety,
tranquillity, mental
well-being, and
social cohesion.
Results • 2017: Plan
approval 55 %
vs 35 %
disapproval.
2018: 50 %
/ 30 %.
• Traffic centre-
comfort
perception
residents inside
from 45 % (vs
25% disagree)
in 2017 to 47 %
(vs 17%
disagree) in
2018.
• Traffic comfort
perception
residents on
R40: inside R40
rising from 27%
(vs 28%
• Awareness of
schemes was
limited (34%).
• 21% perceived
positive personal
impact; 21%
negative.
• Support was
45% overall
• St Peter’s: 49%
found streets
nicer (vs 20%
disagree), 48%
(vs 18%
disagree) said air
cleaner, 46% felt
safer (vs 26%
disagree)
• Concerns:
boundary road
congestion,
consultation
gaps.
• Strong
consensus on
improved
tranquillity,
safety, and
sociability.
• Described as “full
of life,” “inviting,”
and “pleasant.”
• Residents cite
reduced stress,
better mental
health, and more
time spent
outside

disagree) in
2017 to 48 % (vs
32% disagree)
in 2018
• Specific
perception
changes were
stable or slightly
improved.
• Young adults
more supportive
than seniors
Interpretation The decrease in both
the positive and
negative perceptions
between 2017 and
2018 suggests a
growing public
habituation.
Public acceptance is
moderately positive
and stable over time,
with clear differences
based on location
and age. The plan is
perceived as
beneficial to the
majority, especially
non-drivers, but still
controversial among
older populations
and peripheral
residents.
Mixed perceptions
highlight the
polarising nature of
LTNs. While local
support often
outweighs
opposition,
awareness is low
and positive
impacts are
unevenly
distributed. The
schemes show
potential but must
address inclusion
and communication
more proactively.
The superblock is
broadly seen as a
success in
transforming public
space and promoting
well-being. However,
perceptions are less
documented among
non-residents or at
the fringes, where
concerns about
displacement or
exclusion may exist.
4.4.2.3 Critical analysis in measuring social acceptance and wellbeing
• Multi-dimensional indicators: Some plans, notably in Ghent and Islington, used a range
of survey questions to assess different dimensions of acceptance (e.g. perceived
safety, comfort, fairness, satisfaction), which provides a more nuanced understanding
than single approval ratings.
• Repeated and comparative surveys: The Ghent mobility survey (2017–2018) offered
continuity by repeating questions over time and disaggregating results by age, location,
and user profile—allowing for trend analysis and geographic sensitivity.
• Ethnographic and qualitative methods: In Barcelona (Sant Antoni, Horta), qualitative
research such as focus groups and “guerrilla ethnography” captured emotional and
experiential responses, particularly around public space use, stress, tranquillity, and
sense of community—dimensions often missed in structured surveys.
• Public consultation integration: In Islington, structured consultations were used not only
to assess perceptions but to inform policy updates (e.g. Blue Badge exemptions),
creating feedback loops between evaluation and implementation.

Maxime LOYANT 67
• Lack of standardized survey instruments: Each city uses different questions, formats,
and scales, making cross-city comparison difficult. Even similar indicators (e.g. comfort,
safety) are framed differently or target different populations.
• Underrepresentation of vulnerable or critical voices: Groups such as disabled
residents, elderly people, or those living at the edges of intervention areas are often
underrepresented or insufficiently disaggregated, despite having distinct and
sometimes critical perspectives.
• Limited measurement of perceived exclusion or procedural fairness: Social acceptance
is not only about final outcomes, but also about how plans are implemented. Few
evaluations capture whether residents felt included in the decision-making process or
respected in how changes were communicated.
• Absence of long-term follow-up: Most data focus on short- to mid-term reactions. There
is little understanding of how perceptions evolve over several years—especially
relevant for controversial plans with initial resistance.
• Develop a core perception survey module: Cities should adopt a harmonized set of
survey questions covering approval, perceived fairness, safety, comfort, mobility, and
quality of life. This would allow comparability and benchmarking.
• Disaggregate by user profiles: Evaluation tools must systematically collect data by age,
gender, mobility profile (e.g. cyclist, driver), and geography (e.g. inside vs. outside the
intervention zone) to identify unequal experiences.
• Combine quantitative and qualitative approaches: Surveys should be complemented
by interviews, focus groups, or observational methods to uncover deeper or unintended
effects (e.g. changes in stress, sociability, or exclusion).
• Track perceptions over time: Cities should commit to at least one follow-up assessment
several years after implementation to distinguish between short-term resistance and
long-term adaptation or acceptance.
Table 23: Proposal of an indicator for social acceptance and wellbeing
Composite indicator of social acceptance and perceived wellbeing
Measurement method:
A standardized post-implementation survey administered to residents (and key user groups
when relevant) 3 months after the implementation and a year after the first survey, including
a harmonized set of Likert-scale questions covering:
• General approval of the plan (“The circulation plan is a good thing for my
neighbourhood/city”)
• Perceived change in quality of life (e.g. “Living here is more pleasant since the plan”)
• Perceived safety during the day and at night
• Perceived comfort for walking/cycling
• Perceived change in stress, noise, and air quality
• Inclusion and fairness (e.g. “I felt my opinion was considered” or “The plan is fair to
all users”)
Each dimension is scored individually, then aggregated into a normalized composite score
(0–100), allowing inter-city and inter-plan comparison. The sample should be representative
and disaggregated by age, gender, location (inside/outside plan), and mobility profile.

• A composite score ≥ 60 (out of 100), with no significant negative perception among
subgroups.
• Alternatively, at least 60% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the
statement that the plan has made their area “more pleasant to live in” or that it is
“beneficial overall.”
• No critical deficit (i.e., <30% agreement) in any subgroup (e.g., people with
disabilities, residents at boundary areas)
Justification:
This indicator captures not just binary approval but the multi-dimensional nature of social
acceptance—linking personal comfort, safety, fairness, and well-being. It balances
objectivity (through structure and standardisation) with subjective lived experience, which is
essential when evaluating policies designed to reshape daily life. Its comparative potential
makes it a useful decision-making tool for cities considering similar interventions

Maxime LOYANT 69
4.5 Proposal of a standardised evaluation framework
Evaluations of Traffic Circulation Plans (TCPs) are often fragmented, with indicators, methods
and timeframes differing widely across cities. This makes comparisons difficult and limits the
lessons that can be drawn from each case.
This framework proposes a unified and pragmatic approach to evaluate TCPs based on a set
of measurable indicators, clear success criteria, and consistent evaluation steps:
1. Define the objectives of the plan
→ Use official documentation and political framing to clearly identify expected
outcomes.
2. Describe the interventions implemented
→ Distinguish physical measures (e.g. modal filters) from regulatory or communication
actions.
3. Set an evaluation timeline
→ Minimum: baseline (pre-plan), +1 year (post), ideally +2–3 years for mid-term effects.
4. Evaluate through seven key dimensions
→ Use consistent indicators (see below), compare across contexts, and assess against
success thresholds.
5. Analyse perceptions and side effects
→ Include qualitative insights, perceptions, and spatial inequalities.
Each dimension is associated with one or two clear indicators, and a success threshold that
defines what a “positive outcome” could look like.
Table 24: Recommended indicator set
Dimension Indicator Success Threshold
Car traffic Change in daily vehicle
counts (internal + boundary
roads)
≥15% decrease within the
intervention area
≤ 5% increase on boundary
or diversion routes
Modal share Variation in % of trips by
mode
≥10-point increase in active
and public transport modes
Safety Variation in killed and
seriously injured (KSI)
Perceived safety
≥25% reduction in total KSI
≥50% of surveyed residents
reporting an improvement in
perceived safety (vs. ≤10%
Air quality Change in NO₂ annual
average concentration
(µg/m³) compared to
control locations
Change in PM10/PM2,5
annual average
concentration (µg/m³)
compared to control
locations
≥15% reduction within the
intervention area.
≤ 5% increase on boundaries
≥10% reduction within the
intervention area.
≤ 5% increase on boundaries

Noise Variation in average daytime
noise (dB(A))
≥2 dB(A) within the
intervention area.
≤ 1dB(A) increase on
boundaries
Economic activity Commercial footfall
Business dynamics
≥5% increase in footfall, or
redistribution
Increase or no decrease in
business counts or sale
revenue
Social acceptance Composite indicator of
social acceptance and
perceived wellbeing
A composite score ≥ 60 (out
of 100), with no significant
negative perception among
subgroups.
≤ 60% of respondents
agreeing or strongly
agreeing to the plan
No <30% agreement in any
subgroup
This framework is not meant to provide a rigid blueprint, but rather a common language for
evaluating TCPs. By grounding analysis in shared indicators and methods, it is possible to:
• Understand what works and why
• Adapt policies to local needs
• Enable evidence-based scaling and replication

Maxime LOYANT 71
5 CONCLUSIONS
This thesis set out to examine Traffic Circulation Plans (TCPs) as a central tool in contemporary
urban mobility strategies. By comparing diverse cases, especially Ghent's circulation plan,
Islington’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and the Sant Antoni Superblock, the study aimed to
understand how these interventions function in practice, how their impacts are measured, and
how future plans could be better designed and evaluated.
5.1 Achievements and contributions
The research has achieved the following key outcomes in line with its initial objectives:
1. Typologies and definitions clarified
The study delineated three main families of circulation plans—city-scale TCPs,
neighbourhood-based LTNs, and urban restructuring schemes like Superblocks—each
with distinct design logics, spatial ambitions, and implementation challenges.
2. Representative cases analysed in depth
Through systematic analysis of three carefully selected case studies, the study
gathered robust evidence on a broad range of effects, from traffic patterns to air quality,
safety, and perceptions.
3. Impact evaluation through shared indicators
A set of seven thematic areas was used across all plans to allow comparative
assessment. The analysis confirmed consistent trends:
o Traffic volumes and car use decreased in all cases.
o Modal shift was observed where walking and cycling infrastructures were
clearly improved.
o Air quality generally improved, particularly NO₂ concentrations.
o Road safety saw measurable improvements in injury reduction and perceived
safety.
o Public acceptance was generally in favour of the plans
o However, results for noise pollution and economic effects were less consistently
documented, pointing to key monitoring gaps.
4. Correlation between plan features and observed results
The analysis showed that urban morphology, baseline traffic levels, and accompanying
measures (e.g. communication, enforcement, public realm upgrades) significantly
influenced outcomes. Local governance capacity and political legitimacy also emerged
as critical enablers of long-term success.
5. Critical review of evaluation methods
The thesis highlighted significant heterogeneity in how cities monitor impacts, both in
scope and methodological rigor. Good practices include multi-year follow-ups, mixed
methods designs, and transparent public reporting, while frequent gaps include the
absence of economic data, weak noise monitoring, and lack of control areas.
6. A standardised evaluation framework proposed
A core contribution of the thesis is a practical evaluation framework that includes:
o A shared set of quantitative and qualitative indicators
o Defined success thresholds
o Guidance on data collection, timing, and interpretation
This framework can serve both as a tool for ex-post evaluation and a planning
instrument for cities designing new TCPs.

5.CONCLUSIONS
5.2 Limitations and future research directions
While the study tried to provide a solid foundation, several knowledge gaps remain that call for
targeted future research:
• For Superblocks, there is a lack of data on road safety (accident frequency and
severity) and local economic activity.
• For LTNs, key blind spots include economic impacts, noise pollution, and long-term
modal shifts, especially on boundary roads.
• For city-scale TCPs, even though generally well evaluated, further research is needed
to assess noise exposure and to perform deeper, firm-level economic analysis.
In addition to these thematic gaps, the study itself presents some methodological limitations
that should be acknowledged:
• Heterogeneity of sources: This thesis relies on a wide array of documents—scientific
articles, municipal reports, consultancy evaluations, and grey literature. While this
allowed for a broad and pragmatic mapping of impacts, it also introduced variation in
data quality and methodological rigor. Some results stem from peer-reviewed studies
with robust designs, while others rely on internal municipal analyses or perception
surveys with limited transparency.
• Incomplete or uneven data availability: For several case studies, only partial datasets
were accessible, particularly in domains such as economic effects and noise. In some
cases, key evaluation documents were referenced in public discourse but could not be
retrieved, reducing the comparability across plans.
• Temporal and contextual constraints: Because many of the interventions analysed were
implemented recently (post-2017), long-term effects—particularly on modal shifts,
economic resilience, and gentrification—remain difficult to assess. Moreover, the
COVID-19 context, especially in the case of LTNs, may have acted as a confounding
factor in behaviour change.
• Limited stakeholder perspectives: While perception indicators were analysed where
available, this thesis does not include original fieldwork or stakeholder interviews, which
would have enriched the qualitative understanding of acceptance, resistance, and lived
experience.
Traffic Circulation Plans are no longer experimental: they are becoming a central pillar of
sustainable and healthy city agendas across Europe. Yet, for their potential to be fully realised,
cities must move beyond intuition-based decision-making and adopt rigorous, transparent and
standardised evaluation tools.
By offering a concrete framework and identifying key indicators of success, this thesis hopes
to contribute to more accountable, data-informed and citizen-responsive mobility planning.

Maxime LOYANT 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ajuntament de Barcelona. (2016). LET’S FILL STREETS WITH LIFE Establishing Superblocks
in Barcelona Government measure Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and
Mobility.
https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20
GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.pdf
Ajuntament de Barcelona. (2022). SUPERILLA BARCELONA. PRO ESTUDI IMPACTE
MOBILITAT 2023 SUPERILLA BARCELONA Març de 2022.
https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/sites/default/files/2022-03-
28_ESTUDI_IMPACTE_MOBILITAT_2023_TOM_II_web.pdf
ASPB. (2021). RESULTS REPORT. Salut als Carrers (Health in the streets).
https://www.aspb.cat/
Bonte, L. (2020). THE GHENT CIRCULATION PLAN: CONSEQUENCES FOR LOCAL
BUSINESSES Loïc Bonte. https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/837/717/RUG01-
002837717_2020_0001_AC.pdf
Cerema. (2021). LE PLAN DE CIRCULATION : UN OUTIL POUR PROMOUVOIR LES
MODES ACTIFS ET LA QUALITÉ DE VIE.
De Geest, L. (2017). Gent’s Traffic Circulation Plan.
Descamps, F. (2023). Good Move Pentagone, 1 an après.
https://www.bruxelles.be/sites/default/files/bxl/230816_-
_1_an_Good_Move_Pentagone.pdf
Descamps, F. (2024). 2 ans après: Good Move Pentagone.
https://www.bruxelles.be/sites/default/files/bxl/240528_Communique_Good_Move_Pent
agone.pdf
Fayolle, D., Adrion, M., & Clerq, G. (2019). Etat de l’art sur les zones à trafic limité (ZTL) -
Objectifs recherchés, modalités de mise en oeuvre et impacts sur la qualité de l’air.
www.ademe.fr/mediatheque
Gent Stad. (2018). The Circulation Plan.
Goodman, A., Furlong, J., Laverty, A. A., Thomas, A., & Aldred, R. (2021). Impacts of 2020 Low
Traffic Neighbourhoods in London on Road Traffic Injuries. Transport Findings, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.25633
Gurney, R. M., Dunlap, R. E., & Caniglia, B. S. (2022). Climate Change SOS: Addressing
Climate Impacts within a Climate Change Spiral of Silence. Society & Natural Resources,
35(12), 1276–1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2102702
Hendrickx, K. (2024). Le plan de circulation a rendu le Pentagone plus sûr et plus sain. BRUZZ.
https://www.bruzz.be/actua/mobiliteit/circulatieplan-maakte-vijfhoek-veiliger-en-
gezonder-2024-05-28
Herzog, I. (2024). The city-wide effects of tolling downtown drivers: Evidence from London’s
congestion charge. Journal of Urban Economics, 144, 103714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JUE.2024.103714
Homerton Council. (2021). Homerton LTN’s results. Homerton Council.
https://hackney.gov.uk/homerton-ltn

BIBLIOGRAPHY
IPCC. (2023). Transport. In Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change (pp. 1049–
1160). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.012
Ipsos. (2024). Low Traffic Neighbourhoods research report.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65f400adfa18510011011787/low-traffic-
neighbourhoods-research-report.pdf
Islington Council. (2021). Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.
Jordà, A. (2023, October 26). Las supermanzanas, herramienta clave para transformar
nuestras ciudades. https://ciudadinnova.alainjorda.com/p/las-supermanzanas-y-la-
transformacion
Khomenko, S., Cirach, M., Pereira-Barboza, E., Mueller, N., Barrera-Gómez, J., Rojas-Rueda,
D., de Hoogh, K., Hoek, G., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2021). Premature mortality due to air
pollution in European cities: a health impact assessment. The Lancet Planetary Health,
5(3), e121–e134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30272-2
Kuss, P., & Nicholas, K. A. (2022). A dozen effective interventions to reduce car use in
European cities: Lessons learned from a meta-analysis and transition management. Case
Studies on Transport Policy, 10(3), 1494–1513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSTP.2022.02.001
Leach, F. C. P., Yang, J., Shankar, V., Cole, S., Parnell, K., Entezami, M., & Bartington, S. E.
(2024). The impact of a low traffic neighbourhood intervention on urban noise measured
with low-cost sensors in Oxford, UK. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 134, 104357. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2024.104357
Machu, C. (2020). Plan de circulation.
Mairie de Paris. (2025). Zone à faibles émissions métropolitaine : les véhicules Crit’Air 3
interdits dès le 1er janvier 2025. https://www.paris.fr/pages/la-zone-a-faibles-emissions-
zfe-pour-lutter-contre-la-pollution-de-l-air-16799
Moreno, C. (2020, September). Carlos Moreno: The 15-minute city.
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Carlos-Moreno-The-15-minute-
city?language=en_US
Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Khreis, H., Cirach, M., Andrés, D., Ballester, J., Bartoll, X., Daher,
C., Deluca, A., Echave, C., Milà, C., Márquez, S., Palou, J., Pérez, K., Tonne, C.,
Stevenson, M., Rueda, S., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2020). Changing the urban design of
cities for health: The superblock model. Environment International, 134, 105132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2019.105132
Neij, L., Bulkeley, H., & McCormick, K. (2015). Cities and climate change: The great
decarbonisation challenge. www.flickr.com
Nello-Deakin, S. (2022). Exploring traffic evaporation: Findings from tactical urbanism
interventions in Barcelona. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(4), 2430–2442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSTP.2022.11.003
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban Transition Labs: co-
creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50,
111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.12.001

Maxime LOYANT 75
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2020). Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable
and healthy cities; A review of the current evidence. Environment International, 140,
105661. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2020.105661
Nieuwenhuijsen, M., de Nazelle, A., Pradas, M. C., Daher, C., Dzhambov, A. M., Echave, C.,
Gössling, S., Iungman, T., Khreis, H., Kirby, N., Khomenko, S., Leth, U., Lorenz, F.,
Matkovic, V., Müller, J., Palència, L., Pereira Barboza, E., Pérez, K., Tatah, L., … Mueller,
N. (2024). The Superblock model: A review of an innovative urban model for sustainability,
liveability, health and well-being. Environmental Research, 251, 118550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2024.118550
Nieuwenhuijsen, M., & Khreis, H. (2016). Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living.
Environment International, 94, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2016.05.032
Oxfordshire County Council. (2023). East Oxford LTN Evaluation Report.
https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/transport-and-travel/connecting-oxfordshire/low-traffic-
neighbourhoods/east-oxford-ltns
Pérez, K., Palència, L., López, M. J., León-Gómez, B. B., Puig-Ribera, A., Gómez-Gutiérrez,
A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Carrasco-Turigas, G., & Borrell, C. (2025). Environmental and
health effects of the Barcelona superblocks. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 634.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21835-z
Pianu, B., & Gielly, M. (2025). Benchmark des zones à faibles émissions - mobilité à travers
l’Europe. https://librairie.ademe.fr/societe-et-politiques-publiques/6376-benchmark-des-
zones-a-faibles-emissions-mobilite-a-travers-l-europe.html
PolisNetwork. (2017). Promising results of Leuven’s new circulation plan.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240720221220/https://www.polisnetwork.eu/news/promisi
ng-results-of-leuvens-new-circulation-plan/
Rue de l’avenir. (2020). La réduction de l’excès automobile.
https://www.ruedelavenir.com/thematique/la-reduction-de-lexces-automobile/
Rydin, Y., Bleahu, A., Davies, M., Dávila, J. D., Friel, S., De Grandis, G., Groce, N., Hallal, P.
C., Hamilton, I., Howden-Chapman, P., Lai, K. M., Lim, C. J., Martins, J., Osrin, D., Ridley,
I., Scott, I., Taylor, M., Wilkinson, P., & Wilson, J. (2012). Shaping cities for health:
complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. The Lancet,
379(9831), 2079–2108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60435-8
Smitz, H. (2016). Stad stelt langverwachte circulatieplan voor. Nieuwsblad.
https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160216_02132734
Tiran, J., & Sazu, Z. (2023). Literature review on superblocks’ effects on urban realm.
https://repositum.tuwien.at/handle/20.500.12708/212229
Transport & Mobility Leuven. (2018). Evaluatie Circulatieplan Gent Mobiliteitsbedrijf i.s.m.
Transport & Mobility Leuven. https://www.tmleuven.be/en/project/circulatieplangent
Tsubohara, S. (2018). Democracy in the traffic circulation plan for the central area of the
Hague, the Netherlands. International Journal of Transport Development and Integration,
2(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.2495/TDI-V2-N4-373-385
Tsubohara Shinji. (2007). The effect and modification of the Traffic Circulation Plan (VCP) -
traffic plannign in Groningen in the 1980s. https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/the-
effect-and-modification-of-the-traffic-circulation-plan-vcp-t

BIBLIOGRAPHY
UN. (2019). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. UN.
https://doi.org/10.18356/b9e995fe-en
Vasta, R. (2022). Le plan de circulation. https://urbanisme-cyclable.fr/blog/2022/09/25/plan-de-
circulation/
Xiao, C. S., Sinclair, N., Saunders, L., & Panter, J. (2023). Evaluating the impact of low traffic
neighbourhoods in areas with low car ownership: A natural experimental evaluation.
Journal of Transport & Health, 33, 101658. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTH.2023.101658
Yang, X., McCoy, E., Hough, K., & de Nazelle, A. (2022). Evaluation of low traffic
neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and traffic. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 113, 103536. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2022.103536

Maxime LOYANT 77
APENDIX A: TIME PLANNING AND BUDGETING
Table 25: Gantt’s diagram of the master thesis
FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
TASKS
WEEK
1
WEEK
2
WEEK
3
WEEK
4
WEEK
1
WEEK
2
WEEK
3
WEEK
4
WEEK
1
WEEK
2
WEEK
3
WEEK
4
WEEK
1
WEEK
2
WEEK
3
WEEK
4
WEEK
1
WEEK
2
WEEK
3
WEEK
4
Initial coordination with
ADEME experts
Initial coordination with
UPM tutor
Meeting with UPM and
ADEME
Definition of the
problematic of the
master thesis
Littérature review
Definition of the
methodology of
evaluation
Analysis of results
Conclusion and final
changes
Writing of the thesis

APENDIX A: TIME PLANNING AND BUDGETING
Table 26: Hours-person used
Tasks Hours dedicated
Initial coordination with ADEME experts 2
Initial coordination with UPM tutor 2
Meeting with UPM and ADEME 8
Definition of the problematic of the master thesis 10
Littérature review 85
Definition of the methodology of evaluation 20
Analysis of results 45
Conclusion and final changes 10
Writing of the thesis 140
Total hours 322
With the information from the Table 26, it is possible to evaluate the budget for the study which
would be of 7148,34 euros, as illustrated in Table 27.
Table 27: Budget estimation
Category Hours Cost (euro/hour) Total (euros)
Student 322 20,00 6440,00
Tutor 20 35,00 700,00
Electricity 322 0,015 4,83
Computer amortization 322 0,011 3,51
Total 7148,34

Maxime LOYANT 79
APENDIX B: IMPACT EVALUATION: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHIC AND LEGAL
Social Impact:
This thesis contributes to the understanding of how TCPs affect social dynamics by evaluating
indicators related to safety, urban accessibility, public perception, and wellbeing. By analysing
how such interventions reshape mobility habits and access to public space, it supports
inclusive urban environments, particularly for vulnerable groups such as pedestrians, cyclists,
and people with reduced mobility.
Economic Impact:
The work examines how circulation policies may affect local economic activity, highlighting
both potential benefits (e.g. increased footfall, support for local commerce) and risks (e.g.
accessibility issues for certain businesses). It also underscores the current lack of reliable
economic data, paving the way for better-informed investment and policy decisions in urban
mobility.
Environmental Impact:
By measuring impacts on air pollution, noise levels, and modal shift, the thesis addresses the
role of TCPs in promoting low-emission transport systems and improving environmental health.
It offers tools to assess how traffic regulation can contribute to sustainable urban ecosystems
and climate objectives.
Ethical Impact:
The thesis recognises the ethical responsibility of urban policies to ensure equity and fairness,
notably through the analysis of distributional effects across neighbourhoods and populations.
It calls attention to the importance of transparent, participatory evaluation methods that
consider the voices of affected communities.
Legal Impact:
While not conducting a legal analysis per se, this work indirectly supports regulatory
frameworks by identifying relevant indicators and benchmarks for public policy compliance. It
also highlights how local governments can structure legal instruments (e.g. traffic restrictions,
exemptions) to ensure both effectiveness and social acceptability of urban mobility plans.

APENDIX C: CONTRIBUTION TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
APENDIX C: CONTRIBUTION TO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES
Figure 13: Contribution to the UN sustainable development goals
• Goal 3: Good Health and well-being
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Justification: The thesis assesses the effects of traffic plans on air quality, noise and road
accidents, contributing to better urban health and a safer environment.
• Goal 9: Industry innovation and infrastructure
Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster
innovation
Justification: This research proposes a rigorous methodological framework for evaluating
urban mobility plans, encouraging data-driven planning and innovation in urban design.
• Goal 10: Reduced inequalities
Reduce inequality within and among countries
Justification: The thesis assesses the benefits of traffic circulation plans to contribute to a more
equitable use of public space and in areas especially vulnerable to these impacts.
• Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities
Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Maxime LOYANT 81
Justification: By analysing concrete strategies for reducing motorised traffic, improving
accessibility and enhancing quality of life, this work supports the transformation towards more
sustainable and inclusive cities.
• Goal 13: Climate action
Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Justification: Traffic plans encourage fewer polluting modes of transport, and their evaluation
makes it possible to document their role in reducing emissions linked to urban transport.

Analysing the environmental, economic and social footprint of Traffic Circulation Plans in Europe: a proposal to determine their efficiency

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured (20)

Analysing the environmental, economic and social footprint of Traffic Circulation Plans in Europe: a proposal to determine their efficiency