Results: input indicators

Home > Results > Input indicators

The 2025 Healthy Streets Scorecard ranks London Boroughs on how healthy their streets are according to ten indicators (six input indicators and four outcome). By combining the indicator scores, each borough is given a final Healthy Streets score.

This page sets out detailed results for the input indicators:
1. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
2. 20mph Speed Limits
3. Controlled Parking Zones
4. Physically Protected Cycle Track
5. School Provision (A) School Streets (B) Travel for Life
6. Bus Priority

1. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

2024-25 has seen the capital make very modest progress on new area-wide, access-only projects (also known as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods or LTNs). Most of the changes indicated in this year’s figures reflect housekeeping, revisions of existing data and addition of historical locations. A number of leading boroughs have low traffic neighbourhood-type projects in gestation so we’re hopeful we’ll see positive change in next year’s figures.

We worked with City of London officers to review all their historical access-only cells and have produced much more accurate figures as a result. This, combined with the cessation of the Beech Street Zero Emissions project has led to a larger drop in their coverage figure for this year. Hackney and Haringey saw small increases after a number of small amendments were made to their existing and historical LTN-type areas.

Camden reported introducing four new access-only areas which has seen their LTN score rise by 2 percentage points for 2025. Greenwich have introduced two new ‘Neighbourhood Management Schemes’ comprising a series of camera-controlled point closures which operate limited hours (restricting through motor traffic for just 20% of the time). These are similar in nature to a Low Traffic Neighbourhood; however, we will be reviewing how we score part-time schemes in the coming year as clearly the impact differs from full-time operation. Lambeth and Havering saw a small rise in coverage after a number of locations that are historically permeable to walking but not driving were added. We reviewed a long list of historical locations suggested by Redbridge officers; a handful of residential locations permeable to walking and/or cycling were duly added, leading to a rise in the borough’s score this year.

A total of 17 boroughs have less than 20% of their suitable street area covered by LTNs, which is unchanged from 2024. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a cost-effective way of creating new opportunities to better understand how we can enhance the sense of ownership over the places where we live, to reconnect with our neighbours, to once again see children play in front of their homes, introduce planting for wildlife and for most people to be able to walk, wheel and cycle more often.

The graph below shows Inner and Outer London boroughs differentiated by colour (light blue = Inner London, dark blue = Outer London). This graph helps show how boroughs are doing compared to other Inner or Outer boroughs.

This map shows the polygons used to generate the LTN figures for 2025. This is a best efforts process based on data freely available to us at the time. It highlights the borough boundaries (coloured orange) and LTNs (historic, in place before March 2020 – coloured blue; and new, introduced after March 2020 – coloured purple).

*Originally reproduced from Safe Cycling London map, by Safe Cycle London.
Map now updated and produced by the HSS coalition.

2. 20mph Speed Limits

Following 20mph limits getting caught up in the War on the Motorist in late-2023, the picture has once again become far more positive for lower speed limits in London. Positive results from the first year of the 20mph default limit in built-up areas in Wales (all casualties in 20/30mph roads fell by 28%), coupled with a recent TfL report finding a 34% decline in serious and fatal casualties in 20mph limit areas, is leading to renewed interest in lower speed limits in the remaining London’s boroughs that have not already adopted a 20mph default speed limit.

In the 2025 HSS we see the proportion of borough-managed roads with 20mph limits rising from 53.2% in 2023 to 58.9% in 2024 and to 60.9% in 2025. In 2025, 21 out of the 33 London boroughs have a 20mph default speed limit.

Much of this year’s increase flows from the roll-out of 20mph speed limits in Newham where the proportion of borough roads covered by lower speed limits jumped from 41% in 2024 to 99% in 2025. The other significant change is in Ealing where 20mph limits roads rose from 88% to 100%. A recalculation in Harrow has seen the proportion of 20mph roads fall from 37% in 2024 to 28% in 2025.

In spite of the fact that there are 20 London boroughs where 90% or more of the borough-controlled roads have a 20mph limit, there are still four boroughs – Bromley, Hillingdon, Bexley and Havering – where less than 10% of the roads have a 20mph limit. Given the wealth of research supporting the impact of lower speed limits in reducing road casualties, it is hoped that these boroughs will make use of the extra funding that is on offer from TfL through the Borough Safer Streets scheme to make their roads safer for residents and visitors alike with lower speed limits.

An increase in the use of lower speed limits on the TfL managed Red Route arterial road network (TLRN) now means that 264 km (164 miles) of TfL roads have a 20mph speed limit. This includes all of the TfL roads within the Congestion Charge zone and almost all within the North and South Circular roads.

3. Controlled Parking Zones

Healthy Streets Scorecard is now in its third year of gathering CPZ data directly from boroughs, and mapping the results to produce a unique London-wide picture of parking controls. The story this year is one of some progress, albeit slow and uneven. Counting only boroughs where we have reliable data for the last two years, the percentage of suitable London streets included in Controlled Parking Zones crept up from 42.1% 2024 to 42.9% in 2025; at this rate, it will take decades for all boroughs to catch up with the indicator leaders.

Some of this year’s results must be approached with caution: the most significant jumps in coverage are explained by changes to how we record results. For example, Bexley, Barnet and Richmond upon Thames sent us data for the first time this year, resulting in sizeable increases compared to previous years’ estimates. And a change in how we calculate City of London’s ‘opportunity to park’ score has seen its total score double.

In terms of real expansion of controlled parking, credit is due to four neighbouring South London boroughs this year: Greenwich, Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark, which all increased their coverage by c. 4-5 percentage points. This is particularly good news in the case of Lewisham, which at 26.3% has by far the lowest CPZ coverage of any Inner London borough; hopefully this year’s expansion is a sign of new determination to close the gap with its peers. Lambeth and Southwark also have ground to gain on the group of Inner London boroughs north of the river which have achieved 100% CPZ coverage. Understandably these boroughs registered no increase in coverage this year. However two of them – Kensington & Chelsea and Tower Hamlets – could increase their overall scores by redrawing their CPZs with smaller and more numerous zones, thereby reducing permit-holders’ ‘opportunity to park’ in neighbouring areas.

While Greenwich has shown Outer London’s largest expansion of CPZs this year, Enfield and Kingston upon Thames have also modestly expanded coverage by around a percentage point each. But for the majority of Outer London boroughs, progress on controlled parking has stalled. Notwithstanding challenges around enforcing permit use in sparsely-populated areas, some boroughs have demonstrated that coverage of around 50% of suitable area is fully possible in Outer London. We hope this serves as a challenge to slow-moving local authorities to aim higher in coming years.

The graphs below shows Inner and Outer London boroughs differentiated by colour (light blue = Inner London, dark blue = Outer London). These graphs helps show how boroughs are doing compared to other Inner or Outer boroughs.

The first graph shows suitable percentage coverage, the second shows CPZ coverage final scores.

The image below depicts the London Controlled Parking Zones by borough map* highlighting the borough boundaries (coloured black), area excluded from analysis (in grey) and CPZs (in colour).

*Map created by Will Petty (@Microlambert), overseen by the Healthy Streets Scorecard coalition

4. Physically Protected Cycle Track

The past couple years have been notable for lack of delivery of new protected cycle tracks after the boom in 2020 and 2021. Progress may be picking up, but this depends when the many schemes under development are actually constructed. We’ve heard some are actually years away.

There were a few new tracks constructed in the last year: in inner London this includes Islington extending C50 along Caledonian Road, and with Camden, extending the York Way tracks; and Hackney extending tracks on Queensbridge Road. Changes weren’t limited to inner London either. Hounslow continued to extend C9, Waltham Forest extended Hoe Street, Havering completed a short section of protected track in Romford, and Barking & Dagenham installed a few sections, too. Some councils also continue to upgrade Covid era wands to permanent infrastructure.

This year we also have a new map for displaying protected cycle tracks, only showing those that meet our criteria. The map we previously shared covered lots more, including TfL designated cycle routes that do not include physical protection, or were aligned via parks or canals. This map was useful as an overview of the cycle network in London, but it was not clear what on the map was being counted as part of the cycle track indicator.

The new map solves this problem, as it shows only what is measured by the Scorecard. It was created by analysing the data from the old map, filtering out what didn’t meet the criteria, and doing an audit of the entire mapping. We checked through each borough, but it’s likely there are some things we missed. Councils and campaigners were sent the mapping and asked to inform us of anything that was incorrect.

As a result of the mapping, some boroughs have seen a substantial drop in their score. It should be stressed that this is not as a result of removing cycle tracks. Rather, the totals have been revised due to segments being double counted in the past, lengths calculated incorrectly, or conditions not meeting the criteria. Over the next year we will continue to check the new mapping. If you’d like to help with this, please get in touch.

We also changed how we calculate the percentage of roads with cycle track coverage. We have always counted cycle tracks per direction, so a 100m bidirectional track is counted as 200m. We’d then divide this by the total road length in each borough to get the percentage of coverage. This meant theoretically a borough could have more than 100% cycle track coverage. We have now doubled the road length for the calculation (even a one-way road could have a contraflow track on it) and recalculated the percentage for previous years.

The image below depicts the Safe cycling in London map of the cycle network in London.

KEY

Protected cycle lanes – segregated from road traffic (Thick lines)
Unprotected cycle lanes – connecting protected sections of cycle track (Thin lines)
Protected permanent cycle lanes (coloured dark blue)
Pop-up cycle lanes (coloured light blue)
Shared space with pedestrians (coloured orange)
Shared space routes through parks that are closed at night (coloured green)
New routes under construction (coloured brown)
New routes in consultation (coloured pink)

Protected cycle track source: LCC cycle track data and mapping using Safe cycling in London historical data. Cycle track mapping tool to analyse data developed by Stuart Lodge

5. School Provision

The School Provision metric is made up of two parts. Half of the score relates to the proportion of schools which are ‘School Streets’ (i.e. where general traffic is not permitted to enter a street in front of a school during drop-off and pick-up times). The other half of the metric is based on boroughs’ rankings on the Transport for London (TfL) Travel for Life (formerly called STARS) programme, which gives each school a Gold, Silver or Bronze rating depending on how many actions they have taken on aspects such as cycle training, bike storage and healthy walking promotion, and on what proportion of the trips made to school are sustainable.

School Streets

Another bumper year for School Streets. According to data gathered by Mums For Lungs and the Healthy Streets Scorecard there were almost 100 delivered over the last year.

However, six councils account for nearly 80% of those new School Streets, with the other 26 councils accounting for just over 20%. Newham implemented 25 School Streets last year, Lambeth came second with 13, Redbridge (12), Ealing (11), Haringey (9) and Barnet (8).

In terms of proportion of all schools with a School Street, Lewisham (56.7%) has the highest number, the same as last year, Islington (48.6%) is still second, however, Lambeth (47.5%) has edged ahead of Hackney (46.4%) into third place. Newham has leapt up the league table, with 43.6% coverage, compared to 21% last year.

The leading Outer London boroughs for School Street implementation, all with over a third of schools covered, are Hounslow & Merton (39%), Brent (36%), Ealing (35.5%) and Croydon (35%).

School Streets reduce traffic outside schools and improve air quality both on the street and in the school itself. They transform the school run for thousands of children by improving safety, increasing walking and cycling to school, and they provide a healthy start and end to the day.

The graph below shows Inner and Outer London boroughs differentiated by colour (light blue = Inner London, dark blue = Outer London). This helps show how boroughs are doing compared to other Inner or Outer boroughs.

TfL Travel for Life

Engagement with the TfL Travel for Life scheme increased this year, reversing three years of falling numbers; 20 boroughs showed improved scores, and the London-wide average score increased from 28.5% to 30.5%. Bromley remains the top-scoring London borough on this metric, while Islington jumps two places to second, having been this year’s most improved borough with an increase of 16.8 percentage points. Greenwich and Hammersmith & Fulham both climbed seven places up the rankings, from 16th to 9th and 29th to 22nd respectively. Meanwhile Redbridge sank eight places, from 6th to 14th.

Travel for Life measures are only likely to be effective at increasing active and sustainable travel if they are complemented by School Streets and the other physical changes to streets leading to schools. So, some high-scoring Travel for Life boroughs, such as Bromley, Barnet and Greenwich, may need further infrastructure changes to complement their schools’ work in order to create meaningful change.

6. Bus Priority

This indicator measures the proportion of the bus routes in each borough that have been given priority over other motor traffic (through bus lanes or bus gates).

Overall, there has been very little increase in this metric across the board. Bus priority reduces car journeys by making London’s most affordable form of public transport quicker and more reliable for local people and we hope to see increasing action over the coming year.

Hackney continues to increase its score, with over half of its bus routes travelling through bus priority routes. The highest-performing Outer London borough remains Barking and Dagenham on 20%. The borough has introduced further bus priority routes on Longbridge Road since last year.

No improvement has been documented this year by the lowest scoring boroughs Bexley, Bromley or Redbridge. We hope to see some action from them on this metric.

We are pleased to see continuing engagement from boroughs ensuring the metric is kept up to date and are pleased to incorporate improved data.

This map shows London bus priority and bus routes as of today, based on the most accurate information available.