Investigating contestation around neighbourhood scale active travel infrastructure policy

Active travel infrastructure policy implemented at a neighbourhood scale has generated unexpected levels of socio-political contestation, leading to the removal of some schemes and widespread debates regarding equity and justice. Frequently, such contestation is framed as a discrete transport-centric phenomenon, engendering binary and objective pro-vs. anti-active travel infrastructure narratives, which obfuscate the intersection of policy with wider urban socio-spatial development dynamics. In response, this study adopts a critical urban approach to undertake a detailed investigation of contestation, through analysis of the subjective perspectives shaping contested discourses around neighbourhood scale active travel infrastructure. To achieve this, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders, using London as a case study. Our results show that divergent conceptualisations of sustainability, disparate experiences of decision-making processes, and heterogeneous socio-spatial contexts, all play a role in shaping and mediating contestation. Analysis of these themes highlights how processes of contestation are contingent upon the deployment of top-down technocratic policy. These findings reveal how current active travel infrastructure policy can further entrench, and give rise to, novel, uneven development processes. Thus, this study demonstrates the need for more transformative and strategic policy approaches, which offer truly participatory opportunities and consider active travel infrastructure within wider socio-spatial contexts.